[House Report 117-216]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                             House Calendar No. 56

117th Congress }                                          { Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session   }                                          { 117-216

======================================================================
 
  RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND MARK 
 RANDALL MEADOWS IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A 
SUBPOENA DULY ISSUED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 
                6TH ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL

                                _______
                                

 December 13, 2021.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, from the Select Committee to Investigate 
  the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

    The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack 
on the United States Capitol, having considered this Report, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the Report be 
approved.
    The form of the Resolution that the Select Committee to 
Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol 
would recommend to the House of Representatives for citing Mark 
Randall Meadows for contempt of Congress pursuant to this 
Report is as follows:
    Resolved, That Mark Randall Meadows shall be found to be in 
contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional 
subpoena.
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  192 and 194, 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th 
Attack on the United States Capitol, detailing the refusal of 
Mark Randall Meadows to appear for a deposition before the 
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the 
United States Capitol as directed by subpoena, to the United 
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that 
Mr. Meadows be proceeded against in the manner and form 
provided by law.
    Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise 
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background on the Select Committee's Investigation...............     6
Select Committee Consideration...................................    28
Select Committee Votes...........................................    28
Select Committee Oversight Findings..............................    28
C.B.O. Estimate..................................................    29
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    29
Appendix.........................................................    30

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    On January 6, 2021, a violent mob breached the security 
perimeter of the United States Capitol, assaulted and injured 
scores of police officers, engaged in hand-to-hand violence 
with those officers over an extended period, terrorized Members 
of Congress and staff, and invaded and occupied the Capitol 
building, all in an effort to halt the lawful counting of 
electoral votes and reverse the results of the 2020 election. 
In the words of many of those who participated in the violence, 
the attack was a direct response to statements by then-
President Donald J. Trump--beginning on election night 2020 and 
continuing through January 6, 2021--that the 2020 election had 
been stolen by corrupted voting machines, widespread fraud, and 
otherwise.
    In response, the House adopted House Resolution 503 on June 
30, 2021, establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the 
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (hereinafter 
referred to as the ``Select Committee'').
    The Select Committee is investigating the facts, 
circumstances, and causes of the January 6th attack and issues 
relating to the peaceful transfer of power, in order to 
identify how the events of January 6th were planned, what 
actions and statements motivated and contributed to the attack 
on the Capitol, how the violent riot that day was coordinated 
with a political and public relations strategy to reverse the 
election outcome, and why Capitol security was insufficient to 
address what occurred. The Select Committee will evaluate all 
facets of these issues, create a public record of what 
occurred, and recommend to the House, and its relevant 
committees, corrective laws, policies, procedures, rules, or 
regulations.
    According to documents and testimony obtained by the Select 
Committee, Mark Randall Meadows is uniquely situated to provide 
critical information about the events of January 6, 2021, as 
well as efforts taken by public officials and private 
individuals to spread the message of widespread fraud in the 
November 2020 election and to delay or prevent the peaceful 
transfer of power. Mr. Meadows served as chief of staff to 
President Trump during the final year of the Trump 
administration. As detailed in public reporting, Mr. Meadows 
was with or in the vicinity of then-President Trump on January 
6 as Mr. Trump learned about the attack on the U.S. Capitol and 
decided whether to issue a statement that could help to stop 
the rioters.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Jonathan Karl, Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show, (New 
York: Dutton, 2021), pp. 297-299.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Meadows has refused to provide the Select Committee 
with information and testimony that has no conceivable, 
associated privilege claims. To complete its investigation, the 
Select Committee needs access to testimony on this non-
privileged information. The Select Committee offers here just 
several examples: Mr. Meadows has refused to provide testimony 
on the documents he himself produced to the Select Committee 
without any claim of privilege; Mr. Meadows has refused to 
provide testimony about his reported communications with 
organizers of various protest events before January 6, 2021;\2\ 
Mr. Meadows personally travelled to Georgia to inspect a county 
audit related to the presidential election, but the Select 
Committee has not been able to obtain testimony from Mr. 
Meadows about these events;\3\ and Mr. Meadows has also denied 
the Select Committee the opportunity to question him about a 
call with Georgia State officials in which Mr. Trump insisted 
that he had won Georgia and told the Georgia secretary of state 
that he wanted to ``find'' enough votes to ensure his 
victory.\4\ Yet another topic on which Mr. Meadows has 
frustrated the Select Committee's investigative efforts relates 
to the Select Committee's attempt to locate and discover highly 
relevant documents. Based on Mr. Meadows's production of 
documents and recently reported information, it appears that 
Mr. Meadows may not have complied with legal requirements to 
retain or archive documents under the Presidential Records 
Act.\5\ He has denied the Select Committee the opportunity to 
question him about these circumstances so that the Select 
Committee can fully understand the location of highly relevant 
materials to its investigation and which materials may now be 
lost to the historical record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Documents on file with the Select Committee; Joshua Kaplan and 
Joaquin Sapien, ``New Details Suggest Senior Trump Aides Knew Jan. 6 
Rally Could Get Chaotic,'' ProPublica, (June 25, 2021), available at 
https://www.propublica.org/article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-
aides-knew-jan-6-rally-could-get-chaotic.
    \3\Joe Walsh, ``Trump Chief of Staff Observes Georgia County's 
Ballot Audit Amid Ongoing Baseless Fraud Claims,'' Forbes, (Dec. 22, 
2020), available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/12/22/
trump-chief-of-staff-observes-georgia-countys-ballot-audit-amid-
ongoing-baseless-fraud-claims/?sh=379f2627b411.
    \4\``Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump 
and Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 2021), available at 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-
transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-
322644d82356--story.html.
    \5\Nicholas Wu, Kyle Cheney, and Josh Gerstein, ``National 
Archives: Meadows may not have stored all Trump-era records 
`properly','' Politico, (Dec. 9, 2021), available at https://
www.politico.com/news/2021/12/09/national-archives-meadows-trump-
524043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To be clear, Mr. Meadows's failure to comply, and this 
contempt recommendation, are not based on good-faith 
disagreements over privilege assertions. Rather, Mr. Meadows 
has failed to comply and warrants contempt findings because he 
has wholly refused to appear to provide any testimony and 
refused to answer questions regarding even clearly non-
privileged information--information that he himself has 
identified as non-privileged through his own document 
production.
    Mr. Meadows's relevant documents and testimony are 
necessary to the Select Committee's investigation for many 
additional reasons. Mr. Meadows also reportedly participated in 
meetings and communicated with senior Department of Justice 
(DOJ) officials about unsupported election-fraud claims and 
litigation aimed at disrupting or overturning the election 
results.\6\ Mr. Meadows reportedly participated in a 
contentious meeting at the White House with private individuals 
and others linked to Mr. Trump's re-election campaign during 
which Mr. Trump and others discussed seizing voting machines 
and invoking certain laws including the National Emergencies 
Act for election-related purposes because of purported fraud in 
the election.\7\ Mr. Meadows reportedly joined a January 2 call 
with Mr. Trump and State and Federal officials to discuss 
overturning certain States' electoral college results on 
January 6,\8\ and later sent the former Vice President's staff 
a memo drafted by a Trump campaign lawyer urging the Vice 
President to delay or decline the counting of votes from 
certain States.\9\ Mr. Meadows was also reportedly in contact 
with at least one of the individuals who planned and organized 
a January 6 rally, one of whom may have expressed safety 
concerns to Mr. Meadows about the event.\10\ In short, Mr. 
Meadows appears to have participated in, and been a witness to, 
critically important communications and events that took place 
before and on January 6, and the Congress is entitled to hear 
his first-hand testimony regarding his actions and knowledge. 
The Select Committee expects such testimony to be directly 
relevant to its report and recommendations for legislative and 
other action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, ``Subverting Justice: 
How the Former President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 
2020 Election,'' (Oct. 7, 2021) (``Senate Report''), at pp. 4, 5, 14, 
29-39; Documents on file with the Select Committee.
    \7\Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside the 
craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb. 2, 2021), 
available at https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-office-meeting-sidney-
powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-26eb267f8723.html.
    \8\Caitlin McFall, ``Trump, House Republicans held call to discuss 
Electoral College rejection: Brooks,'' Fox News, (Jan. 2, 2021), 
available at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-splits-electoral-
college-certification; Documents on file with the Select Committee.
    \9\Karl, Betrayal, pp. 259-260.
    \10\Documents on file with the Select Committee; Joshua Kaplan and 
Joaquin Sapien, ``New Details Suggest Senior Trump Aides Knew Jan. 6 
Rally Could Get Chaotic,'' ProPublica, (June 25, 2021), available at 
https://www.propublica.org/article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-
aides-knew-jan-6-rally-could-get-chaotic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 23, 2021, the Select Committee issued a 
subpoena to Mr. Meadows for documents and testimony, and 
transmitted it along with a cover letter and schedule to Mr. 
Meadows's then-counsel, who accepted service on Mr. Meadows's 
behalf on that same day. The subpoena required that Mr. Meadows 
produce responsive documents by October 7, 2021, and that Mr. 
Meadows appear for a deposition on October 15, 2021. After Mr. 
Meadows retained separate counsel, the Select Committee agreed 
to postpone the subpoena deadlines to enable his counsel to 
understand the requests associated with the subpoena and work 
with Mr. Meadows. Ultimately, by letter dated October 25, 2021, 
the Select Committee accommodated Mr. Meadows's interest in 
moving back the date of his appearance and document production 
and instructed Mr. Meadows to produce documents by November 5, 
2021, and appear for a deposition on November 12, 2021.
    Mr. Meadows's resistance came after the Select Committee 
agreed to that postponement, after the Select Committee 
identified specific subject matters for inquiry that did not 
implicate any privilege, and after inviting Mr. Meadows to 
explain with specificity his position as to whether any of 
those areas would trigger any claims of executive privilege. 
Mr. Meadows provided no such explanation. Instead, he declined 
to produce a single document. He refused to carry out the 
commonly accepted practice of producing a privilege log in 
response to the Select Committee's subpoena. And he failed to 
appear at the scheduled deposition, as ordered by the lawful 
subpoena.
    A week after Mr. Meadows failed to appear for his 
deposition and 2 weeks after his deadline to produce documents, 
Mr. Meadows reengaged with the Select Committee by letter. The 
Select Committee gave Mr. Meadows an opportunity to cure his 
previous non-compliance with the Select Committee's subpoena by 
asking that he produce documents and appear at a deposition 
that, ultimately, was scheduled for December 8, 2021. Through 
counsel, Mr. Meadows agreed. Mr. Meadows produced a large 
number of responsive documents that were not subject to any 
claim of privilege, while withholding many others. But the day 
before his deposition, Mr. Meadows changed course once more and 
told the Select Committee that he would not be attending his 
deposition after all, even to answer questions about the 
documents that he agrees are relevant and non-privileged that 
he had just produced. He did this even though that very same 
day his book was released in which he recounts specific 
conversations that he had with former-President Trump, 
including conversations about whether the former President 
planned to join a march to the United States Capitol on January 
6 after encouraging rally-goers to do so.\11\ On December 8, 
2021, Mr. Meadows failed to appear for his deposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Mark Meadows, The Chief's Chief, (All Seasons Press, 2021), p. 
259.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although Mr. Meadows's counsel has referenced claims of 
testimonial immunity and executive privilege purportedly 
relayed by Mr. Trump's counsel, no such claims have been 
presented by Mr. Trump to the Select Committee. Moreover, the 
current White House has informed Mr. Meadows that the incumbent 
President is not asserting claims of testimonial immunity or 
executive privilege to prevent Mr. Meadows from complying with 
the Select Committee's subpoena.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\See Appendix, Ex. 3 (Letter from White House Counsel to Counsel 
for Mr. Meadows, Nov. 11, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Select Committee is confident that there is no 
conceivable immunity or executive privilege claim that could 
bar all of the Select Committee's requests or justify Mr. 
Meadows's blanket refusal to appear for the required 
deposition. Indeed, the Chairman's written responses on October 
25, 2021, November 5, 2021, and November 11, 2021, addressed 
the legal arguments raised by Mr. Meadows's counsel and made 
clear that the Select Committee expected--as the law demands--
that Mr. Meadows produce documents and appear before the Select 
Committee at his deposition to raise any privilege or other 
concerns regarding specific questions on the record of that 
proceeding.
    The contempt of Congress statute, 2 U.S.C. Sec.  192, 
provides that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or 
be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of 
up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year.\13\ Further, 
the Supreme Court in United States v. Bryan (1950) emphasized 
that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person 
within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform 
when properly summoned.''\14\ The Supreme Court recently 
reinforced this clear obligation by stating that ``[w]hen 
Congress seeks information needed for intelligent legislative 
action, it unquestionably remains the duty of all citizens to 
cooperate.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\The prison term for this offense makes it a Class A 
misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C.  3559(a)(6). By that classification, the 
penalty for contempt of Congress specified in 2 U.S.C.  192 increased 
from $1,000 to $100,000. 18 U.S.C.  3571(b)(5).
    \14\United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
    \15\Trump v. Mazars USA LLP, 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2036 (2020) (emphasis 
in original; internal quotation marks removed). See also Watkins v. 
United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187-88 (1957) (stating of citizens that 
``It is their unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to 
respect the dignity of the Congress and its committees, and to testify 
fully with respect to matters within the province of proper 
investigation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Meadows did not produce documents as required by the 
subpoena's October 7, 2021, deadline or the extended deadline 
of November 5, 2021. Similarly, Mr. Meadows did not appear for 
a deposition scheduled for October 15, 2021, or the extended 
deadline of November 12, 2021, as ordered by the subpoena and 
in contravention of the clear instructions by the Select 
Committee Chairman's letters dated October 25, 2021, November 
5, 2021, November 9, 2021, and November 11, 2021, to appear at 
the deposition and raise any privilege concerns in response to 
specific questions on the record. Furthermore, Mr. Meadows 
chose not to appear before the Select Committee on December 8, 
2021, to cure his previous non-compliance and after 
specifically agreeing to do so. Mr. Meadows's refusal to comply 
with the Select Committee's subpoena constitutes willful 
default under the law and warrants contempt of Congress and 
referral to the United States Attorney for the District of 
Columbia for prosecution as prescribed by law. The denial of 
the information sought by the subpoena impairs Congress's 
central powers under the United States Constitution.

           BACKGROUND ON THE SELECT COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION

    House Resolution 503 sets out the specific purposes of the 
Select Committee, including:
            To investigate and report upon the facts, 
        circumstances, and causes ``relating to the January 6, 
        2021, domestic terrorist attack upon the United States 
        Capitol Complex'';
           To investigate and report upon the facts, 
        circumstances, and causes ``relating to the 
        interference with the peaceful transfer of power''; and
           To investigate and report upon the facts, 
        circumstances, and causes relating to ``the influencing 
        factors that fomented such an attack on American 
        representative democracy while engaged in a 
        constitutional process.''
    The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress's oversight 
role. ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is 
inherent in the legislative process.''\16\ Indeed, Congress's 
ability to enforce its investigatory power ``is an essential 
and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.''\17\ 
``Absent such a power, a legislative body could not `wisely or 
effectively' evaluate those conditions `which the legislation 
is intended to affect or change.'''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957). See also 
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S.Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020).
    \17\McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927).
    \18\Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, 409 F.Supp. 297, 305 (D.D.C. 1976), 
aff'd, 548 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (quoting McGrain, 273 U.S. at 
175).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The oversight powers of House and Senate committees are 
also codified in law. For example, the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 directed committees to ``exercise 
continuous watchfulness'' over the executive branch's 
implementation of programs within its jurisdictions,\19\ and 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 authorized 
committees to ``review and study, on a continuing basis, the 
application, administration, and execution'' of laws.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Pub. L. 79-601, 79th Cong.  136, (1946).
    \20\Pub. L. 91-510, 91st Cong.  118, (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Select Committee was properly constituted under section 
2(a) of House Resolution 503, 117th Congress. As required by 
that resolution, Members of the Select Committee were selected 
by the Speaker, after ``consultation with the minority 
leader.''\21\ A bipartisan selection of Members was appointed 
pursuant to House Resolution 503 on July 1, 2021, and July 26, 
2021.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Speaker Pelosi detailed such consultation and her selection 
decisions in a July 21, 2021, press release, available at https://
www.speaker.gov/newsroom/72121-2.
    \22\167 Cong. Rec. 115 (July 1, 2021), at p. H3597 and 167 Cong. 
Rec. 130 (July 26, 2021), at p. H3885. The January 4, 2021, order of 
the House provides that the Speaker is authorized to accept 
resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the 
House. See 167 Cong. Rec. 2 (Jan. 4, 2021), at p. H37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to House rule XI and House Resolution 503, the 
Select Committee is authorized ``to require, by subpoena or 
otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and 
the production of books, records, correspondence, memoranda, 
papers, and documents as it considers necessary.''\23\ That 
same House rule expressly allows House committees to compel 
information from the President and his aides.\24\ Further, 
section 5(c)(4) of House Resolution 503 provides that the 
Chairman of the Select Committee may ``authorize and issue 
subpoenas pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI in the 
investigation and study'' conducted pursuant to the enumerated 
purposes and functions of the Select Committee. The Select 
Committee's authorizing resolution further states that the 
Chairman ``may order the taking of depositions, including 
pursuant to subpoena, by a Member or counsel of the Select 
Committee, in the same manner as a standing committee pursuant 
to section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred 
Seventeenth Congress.''\25\ The subpoena to Mr. Meadows was 
duly issued pursuant to section 5(c)(4) of House Resolution 503 
and clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\House rule XI, cl. 2(m)(1)(B), 117th Cong., (2021); H. Res. 
503, 117th Cong.  5(c)(4), (2021).
    \24\See clause 2(m)(3)(D) of rule XI (``Subpoenas for documents or 
testimony may be issued to . . . the President, and the Vice President, 
whether current or former, in a personal or official capacity, as well 
as the White House, the Office of the President, the Executive Office 
of the President, and any individual currently or formerly employed in 
the White House, Office of the President, or Executive Office of the 
President.'').
    \25\H. Res. 503, 117th Cong.  5(c)(6), (2021).
    \26\Section 5(c)(4) of H. Res. 503 invokes clause 2(m)(3)(A)(i) of 
rule XI, which states in pertinent part: ``The power to authorize and 
issue subpoenas under subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chair 
of the committee under such rules and under such limitations as the 
committee may prescribe.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows central to 
        its investigative purposes.

    The Select Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows 
central to its investigative responsibilities delegated to it 
from the House of Representatives. This includes the obligation 
to investigate and report on the facts, circumstances, and 
causes of the attack on January 6, 2021, and on the facts, 
circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with 
the peaceful transfer of power.''\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\H. Res. 503, 117th Cong.  3(1) (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The events of January 6, 2021, involved both a physical 
assault on the Capitol building and law enforcement personnel 
protecting it and an attack on the constitutional process 
central to the peaceful transfer of power following a 
presidential election. The counting of electoral college votes 
by Congress is a component of that transfer of power that 
occurs every January 6 following a presidential election. This 
event is part of a complex process, mediated through the free 
and fair elections held in jurisdictions throughout the 
country, and through the statutory and constitutional processes 
set up to confirm and validate the results. In the case of the 
2020 presidential election, the January 6 electoral college 
vote count occurred following a series of efforts in the 
preceding weeks by Mr. Trump and his supporters to challenge 
the legitimacy of, disrupt, delay, and overturn the election 
results.
    According to eyewitness accounts as well as the statements 
of participants in the attack on January 6, 2021, a purpose of 
the assault was to stop the process of validating what then-
President Trump, his supporters, and his allies had falsely 
characterized as a ``stolen'' or ``fraudulent'' election. The 
claims regarding the 2020 election results were advanced and 
amplified in the weeks leading up to the January 6 assault, 
even after courts across the country had resoundingly rejected 
Trump campaign lawsuits claiming election fraud and misconduct, 
and after all States had certified the election results. As 
part of this effort, Mr. Trump and his associates spread false 
information about, and cast doubts on, the elections in 
Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, among other 
states, and pressed Federal, State, and local officials to use 
their authorities to challenge the election results.
    To fulfill its investigative responsibilities, the Select 
Committee needs to understand the events and communications in 
which Mr. Meadows reportedly participated or that he observed.
    Mr. Meadows was one of a relatively small group of people 
who witnessed the events of January 6 in the White House and 
with then-President Trump. Mr. Meadows was with or in the 
vicinity of then-President Trump on January 6 as he learned 
about the attack on the U.S. Capitol and decided whether to 
issue a statement that could stop the rioters.\28\ In fact, as 
the violence at the Capitol unfolded, Mr. Meadows received many 
messages encouraging him to have Mr. Trump issue a statement 
that could end the violence, and one former White House 
employee reportedly contacted Mr. Meadows several times and 
told him, ``[y]ou guys have to say something. Even if the 
president's not willing to put out a statement, you should go 
to the [cameras] and say, `We condemn this. Please stand down.' 
If you don't, people are going to die.''\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\Karl, Betrayal, pp. 297-299.
    \29\Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows 
production); Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, I Alone Can Fix It, (New 
York: Penguin, 2021), p. 476.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, Mr. Meadows reportedly spoke with Kashyap Patel, 
who was then the chief of staff to former Acting Secretary of 
Defense Christopher Miller, ``nonstop'' throughout the day of 
January 6.\30\ And, among other things, Mr. Meadows apparently 
knows if and when Mr. Trump was engaged in discussions 
regarding the National Guard's response to the Capitol riot, a 
point that is contested but about which Mr. Meadows provided 
documents to the Select Committee and spoke publicly on 
national television after President Trump left office.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Adam Ciralsky, ```The President Threw Us Under the Bus': 
Embedding with Pentagon Leadership in Trump's Chaotic Last Week,'' 
Vanity Fair, (Jan. 22, 2021), available at https://www.vanityfair.com/
news/2021/01/embedding-with-pentagon-leadership-in-trumps-chaotic-last-
week.
    \31\Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows 
production); Transcript, ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox News, (Feb. 11, 
2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/biden-warns-
china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-call-with-xi; Transcript, 
``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Feb. 12, 2021), available at https://
www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-yorker-who-lost-mother-in-law-in-
nursing-home-blasts-disgrace-cuomo; Testimony of Hon. Christopher C. 
Miller, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and 
Reform, (May 12, 2021), available at https://oversight.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/Miller%20Testimony.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beyond those matters, the Select Committee seeks 
information from Mr. Meadows about issues including the 
following:
           Mr. Meadows exchanged text messages with, 
        and provided guidance to, an organizer of the January 
        6th rally on the Ellipse after the organizer told him 
        that ``[t]hings have gotten crazy and I desperately 
        need some direction. Please.''\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows 
production).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows sent an email to an individual 
        about the events on January 6 and said that the 
        National Guard would be present to ``protect pro Trump 
        people'' and that many more would be available on 
        standby.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows 
production).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows received text messages and 
        emails regarding apparent efforts to encourage 
        Republican legislators in certain States to send 
        alternate slates of electors to Congress, a plan which 
        one Member of Congress acknowledged was ``highly 
        controversial'' and to which Mr. Meadows responded, ``I 
        love it.'' Mr. Meadows responded to a similar message 
        by saying ``[w]e are'' and another such message by 
        saying ``Yes. Have a team on it.''\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Documents on file with the Select Committee (Meadows 
production).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows forwarded claims of election 
        fraud to the acting leadership of DOJ for further 
        investigation, some of which he may have received using 
        a private email account and at least one of which he 
        had received directly from people associated with Mr. 
        Trump's re-election campaign.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\Documents on file with the Select Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           He also reportedly introduced Mr. Trump to 
        then-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark.\36\ Mr. Clark went on 
        to recommend to Mr. Trump that he be installed as 
        Acting Attorney General and that DOJ should send a 
        letter to State officials urging them to take certain 
        actions that could affect the outcome of the November 
        2020 election by, among other things, appointing 
        alternate slates of electors to cast electoral votes 
        for Mr. Trump rather than now-President Biden.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Michael Bender, Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside 
Story of How Trump Lost, (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2021), p. 
369.
    \37\Documents on file with the Select Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows participated in meetings and 
        calls during which the participants reportedly 
        discussed the need to ``fight'' back against ``mounting 
        evidence'' of purported voter fraud after courts had 
        considered and overwhelmingly rejected Trump campaign 
        claims of voter fraud and other election 
        irregularities. He participated in one such meeting in 
        the Oval Office with Mr. Trump and Members of Congress, 
        which he publicly tweeted about from his personal 
        Twitter account shortly after.\38\ He participated in 
        another such call just days before the January 6 attack 
        with Mr. Trump, Members of Congress, attorneys for the 
        Trump re-election campaign, and ``some 300'' State and 
        local officials to discuss the goal of overturning 
        certain States' electoral college results on January 6, 
        2021.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Marissa Schultz, ``Trump meets with members of Congress 
plotting Electoral College objections on Jan. 6,'' Fox News, (Dec. 21, 
2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/members-of-
congress-trump-electoral-college-objections-on-jan-6; Tweet, 
@MarkMeadows, (Dec. 21, 2020 at 6:03 p.m.) (``Several members of 
Congress just finished a meeting in the Oval Office with President 
@realDonaldTrump, preparing to fight back against mounting evidence of 
voter fraud. Stay tuned.'').
    \39\Caitlin McFall, ``Trump, House Republicans held call to discuss 
Electoral College rejection: Brooks,'' Fox News, (Jan. 2, 2021), 
available at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-splits-electoral-
college-certification; Tweet, @RepMoBrooks, (Jan. 2, 2021 at 7:17 p.m.) 
(``Our fight for honest & accurate elections gains momentum! 
@Jim_Jordan & I co-lead conference call w 50+ Congressmen who join & 
fight for America's Republic! . . . President Trump & CoS Mark Meadows 
speaking. Morale is HIGH! FIGHT!''); Paul Bedard, ``Exclusive: Trump 
urges state legislators to reject electoral votes, `You are the real 
power','' Washington Examiner, (Jan. 3, 2021), available at https://
www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/exclusive-trump-urges-
state-legislators-to-reject-electoral-votes-you-are-the-real-power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows traveled to Georgia to observe 
        an audit of the votes days after then-President Trump 
        complained that the audit had been moving too slowly 
        and claimed that the signature-match system was rife 
        with fraud.\40\ That trip precipitated Mr. Trump's 
        calls to Georgia's deputy secretary of state and, 
        later, secretary of state.\41\ In the call with 
        Georgia's secretary of state, which Mr. Meadows and an 
        attorney working with the campaign also joined, Mr. 
        Trump pressed his unsupported claims of widespread 
        election fraud, including claims related to deceased 
        people voting, forged signatures, out-of-State voters, 
        shredded ballots, triple-counted ballots, Dominion 
        voting machines, and suitcase ballots, before telling 
        the secretary of state that he wanted to find enough 
        votes to ensure his victory.\42\ At one point during 
        the call, Mr. Meadows asked ``in the spirit of 
        cooperation and compromise, is there something that we 
        can at least have a discussion to look at some of these 
        allegations to find a path forward that's less 
        litigious?''\43\ At that point, Mr. Trump had filed two 
        lawsuits in his personal capacity and on behalf of the 
        campaign in Georgia, but the United States had not 
        filed--and never did file--any. Mr. Meadows used a 
        personal account in his attempts to reach the secretary 
        of state before.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\Linda So, ``Trump's chief of staff could face scrutiny in 
Georgia criminal probe,'' Reuters, (March 19, 2021), available at 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-georgia-meadows-insight-
idUSKBN2BB0XX.
    \41\Id.
    \42\``AP FACT CHECK: Trump's made-up claims of fake Georgia 
votes,'' Associated Press, (Jan. 3, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/
ap-fact-check-donald-trump-georgia-elections-atlanta-
c23d10e5299e14daee6109885f7dafa9; ``Here's the full transcript and 
audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, 
(Jan. 2, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-
11eb-83e3-322644d82356--story.html.
    \43\``Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between 
Trump and Raffensperger,'' Washington Post, (Jan. 2, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-transcript-
georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356--
story.html.
    \44\Documents on file with the Select Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows was chief of staff during the 
        post-election period when other White House staff, 
        including the press secretary, advanced claims of 
        election fraud. In one press conference, the press 
        secretary claimed that there were ``very real claims'' 
        of fraud that the Trump re-election campaign was 
        pursuing and said that mail-in voting was one that ``we 
        have identified as being particularly prone to 
        fraud.''\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\Transcript of November 20, 2020, White House Press Conference, 
available at https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/press-secretary-
kayleigh-mcenany-white-house-press-conference-transcript-november-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows participated in a meeting that 
        reportedly occurred on December 18, 2020, with Mr. 
        Trump, the White House counsel, an attorney associated 
        with the campaign, White House staff, and private 
        citizens, on proposals relating to challenging the 2020 
        election results.\46\ During the meeting, the 
        participants reportedly discussed purported foreign 
        interference in the election, seizing voting machines, 
        invoking certain Federal laws like the National 
        Emergencies Act, and appointing one of the attendees as 
        a special counsel with a Top Secret security clearance 
        to investigate fraud in the election.\47\ White House 
        officials, including Mr. Meadows, may have resisted 
        some of the proposals,\48\ but, at one point, Mr. Trump 
        reportedly said: ``You [White House] guys are offering 
        me nothing. These guys are at least offering me a 
        chance. They're saying they have the evidence. Why not 
        try this?''\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside the 
craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb. 2, 2021), 
available at https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-office-meeting-sidney-
powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-26eb267f8723.html.
    \47\Id.
    \48\Maggie Haberman and Zolan Kanno-Youngs, ``Trump Weighed Naming 
Election Conspiracy Theorist as Special Counsel,'' New York Times, 
(Dec. 19, 2020), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/
politics/trump-sidney-powell-voter-fraud.html.
    \49\Jonathan Swan and Zachary Basu, ``Bonus episode: Inside the 
craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,'' Axios, (Feb. 2, 2021), 
available at https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-office-meeting-sidney-
powell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-26eb267f8723.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows reportedly sent an email--
        subject line: ``Constitutional Analysis of the Vice 
        President's Authority for January 6, 2021, Vote 
        Count''--to a member of then-Vice President Pence's 
        senior staff containing a memo written by an attorney 
        affiliated with Mr. Trump's re-election campaign. The 
        memo argued that the Vice President could declare 
        electoral votes in six States in dispute when they came 
        up for a vote during the Joint Session of Congress on 
        January 6, 2021, which would require those States' 
        legislatures to send a response to Congress by 7 p.m. 
        EST on January 15 or, if they did not, then 
        congressional delegations would vote for Mr. Trump's 
        re-election.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\Karl, Betrayal, pp. 259-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows was in contact with at least 
        some of the private individuals who planned and 
        organized a January 6 rally, one of whom reportedly may 
        have expressed safety concerns to Mr. Meadows about 
        January 6 events.\51\ Mr. Meadows used his personal 
        cell phone to discuss the rally in the days leading up 
        to January 6.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Documents on file with the Select Committee; Joshua Kaplan and 
Joaquin Sapien, ``New Details Suggest Senior Trump Aides Knew Jan. 6 
Rally Could Get Chaotic,'' ProPublica, (June 25, 2021), available at 
https://www.propublica.org/article/new-details-suggest-senior-trump-
aides-knew-jan-6-rally-could-get-chaotic.
    \52\Documents on file with the Select Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows described in his book, The 
        Chief's Chief, specific conversations that he had with 
        Mr. Trump while he was the President about, among other 
        things, fraud in the election and the January 6th 
        attack on the United States Capitol. In one passage 
        about the election, Mr. Meadows quotes Mr. Trump.\53\ 
        In another passage about January 6, Mr. Meadows 
        describes a conversation he had with Mr. Trump after 
        Mr. Trump spoke to rally goers and, presumably, just 
        after the attack on the Capitol had started.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\Meadows, The Chief's Chief, p. 261.
    \54\Meadows, The Chief's Chief, p. 259.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is apparent that Mr. Meadows's testimony and document 
production are of critical importance to the Select Committee's 
investigation. Congress, through the Select Committee, is 
entitled to discover facts concerning what led to the attack on 
the U.S. Capitol on January 6, as well as White House 
officials' actions and communications during and after the 
attack. Mr. Meadows is uniquely situated to provide key 
information, having straddled an official role in the White 
House and unofficial role related to Mr. Trump's re-election 
campaign since at least election day in 2020 through January 6.

B. Mr. Meadows has refused to comply with the Select Committee's 
        subpoena.

    On September 23, 2021, the Select Committee sent a subpoena 
to Mr. Meadows ordering the production of both documents and 
testimony relevant to the Select Committee's investigation.\55\ 
The accompanying letter set forth a schedule specifying 
categories of related documents sought by the Select Committee 
on topics including, but not limited to, documents and 
communications regarding the 2020 election results sent or 
transmitted between White House officials and officials of 
State or local governments; communications regarding 
challenging, decertifying, overturning, or contesting the 
results of the 2020 presidential election; communications with 
Members of Congress on January 6 relating to or referring to 
the attack on the Capitol; documents and communications related 
to security of the Capitol or other Federal facilities on 
January 5, 2021, and January 6, 2021; and documents and 
communications regarding any plan for the former President to 
march or walk to the Capitol.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\See Appendix, Ex. 1 (Subpoena to Mark Meadows).
    \56\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The subpoena required Mr. Meadows to produce the requested 
documents to the Select Committee on October 7, 2021, and to 
provide testimony on October 15, 2021. As authorized by Mr. 
Meadows, attorney Scott Gast accepted service of this subpoena 
on behalf of Mr. Meadows on September 23, 2021. On October 7, 
2021, George J. Terwilliger, III, sent a letter to the Select 
Committee advising that he had been retained to serve as 
counsel to Mr. Meadows for purposes of the Select Committee's 
inquiry.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\See Appendix, Ex. 2 (Various Correspondence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 12, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger and staff for the 
Select Committee had a telephone call to discuss the Select 
Committee's subpoena to Mr. Meadows. During that call, staff 
for the Select Committee previewed certain topics of inquiry 
they intended to develop during Mr. Meadows's deposition and 
for which claims of executive privilege should not apply.\58\ 
Chairman Thompson included that list of topics in a later 
letter to Mr. Terwilliger dated October 25, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 13, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger emailed staff for the 
Select Committee and referenced ``the potential for conflicting 
directions from former-President Trump and President Biden as 
to preservation of privileges concerning senior presidential 
advisors and communication by the same in that role.''\59\ Mr. 
Terwilliger stated that he was scheduled to discuss ``privilege 
issues'' with the White House [c]ounsel's office on October 14 
but indicated that it was ``not clear . . . that, in whole or 
in part, relevant privileges would not attach to Mr. Meadows['] 
testimony'' as to topics that staff for the Select Committee 
outlined during the October 12 telephone call.\60\ Accordingly, 
he informed the Select Committee that he ``could not advise'' 
Mr. Meadows to ``commit to testifying'' on the subpoena 
designated date of October 15.\61\ Mr. Terwilliger also emailed 
to staff for the Select Committee an October 6, 2021, letter 
from former-President Trump's counsel, Justin Clark, to Mr. 
Meadows's then-counsel, Mr. Gast, expressing former-President 
Trump's apparent belief that ``Mr. Meadows is immune from 
compelled congressional testimony on matters related to his 
official responsibilities.''\62\ The letter also purports to 
``instruct[]'' Mr. Meadows ``(a) where appropriate, invoke any 
immunities and privilege he may have from compelled testimony 
in response to the [s]ubpoena; (b) not produce any documents 
concerning his official duties in response to the [s]ubpoena; 
and (c) not provide any testimony concerning his official 
duties in response to the [s]ubpoena.''\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\Id.
    \60\Id.
    \61\Id.
    \62\Id.
    \63\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 25, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to Mr. 
Terwilliger's October 7, 2021, letter and October 13, 2021, 
email. He stated that even assuming that, as a former 
President, Mr. Trump is permitted to formally invoke executive 
privilege, Mr. Trump had not communicated an invocation of 
privilege, either formally or informally, to the Select 
Committee with respect to Mr. Meadows's production of documents 
or appearance to provide testimony.\64\ The October 25 response 
from Chairman Thompson further stated that--even assuming a 
privilege applied to Mr. Meadows's documents and testimony and 
former-President Trump had formally invoked a privilege (which 
was not the case)--Mr. Meadows does not enjoy anything like the 
type of blanket testimonial immunity former-President Trump and 
Mr. Terwilliger suggested would insulate Mr. Meadows from an 
obligation to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena.\65\ 
The letter also noted that, regardless, the information the 
Select Committee seeks from Mr. Meadows involves a range of 
subjects that cannot be considered part of Mr. Meadows's 
``official responsibilities,'' including but not limited to 
``communications and meetings involving people who did not work 
for the United States government''; ``Mr. Meadows'[] campaign-
related activities''; and ``communications and meetings about 
topics for which the Department of Justice and the White House 
have expressly declined to assert executive privilege.''\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\Id.
    \65\Id.
    \66\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chairman's October 25 letter extended the subpoena's 
document production deadline to November 5, 2021, and extended 
Meadows's appearance for deposition testimony to November 12, 
2021.\67\ It also made clear that the Select Committee would 
view failure to respond to the subpoena as willful non-
compliance, which would force the Select Committee to consider 
invoking the contempt of Congress procedures pursuant to 2 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  192 and 194, as well as the possibility of 
civil enforcement proceedings.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\Id.
    \68\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 3, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger transmitted a letter 
to the Select Committee, responding to Chairman Thompson's 
October 25, 2021, letter with respect to the production of 
documents. In it, Mr. Terwilliger stated that he was ``not 
aware at this time of any documents that are responsive to the 
Select Committee's subpoena and maintained in Mr. Meadows's 
custody or control,'' and that he ``therefore ha[d] no 
documents to produce to the Select Committee.''\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That same day, Mr. Terwilliger transmitted to the Select 
Committee a second letter. In it, Mr. Terwilliger suggested 
that Mr. Meadows maintains a ``good faith'' belief that he 
cannot comply with the subpoena and testify before Congress 
and, instead, proposed unspecified accommodations.\70\ Notably, 
Mr. Terwilliger acknowledged that courts had universally 
rejected Mr. Meadows's position on absolute testimonial 
immunity, but claimed that the executive branch had never 
``retreated from that position'' and that the Supreme Court had 
never weighed in.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\Id.
    \71\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 5, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to Mr. 
Terwilliger's November 3 letters. Chairman Thompson noted that 
although Mr. Terwilliger stated that Mr. Meadows had no 
documents to produce to the Select Committee, Mr. Terwilliger 
had previously indicated that he had gathered documents from 
Mr. Meadows and was reviewing those documents for 
responsiveness.\72\ The November 5 letter also reiterated Mr. 
Meadows's obligation to provide a privilege log detailing each 
document and each privilege that he believes applied for any 
responsive documents so the Select Committee could evaluate 
whether any additional actions are appropriate, reminded Mr. 
Terwilliger that categorical claims of executive privilege are 
improper and that Mr. Meadows must assert any such claim made 
by former-President Trump narrowly and specifically.\73\ 
Chairman Thompson further noted that the Select Committee had 
received information suggesting that Mr. Meadows used his 
personal cell phone for communications relevant to the Select 
Committee's inquiry, some of which potentially would fall under 
Presidential Records Act requirements.\74\ Accordingly, 
Chairman Thompson requested that Mr. Terwilliger identify for 
the Select Committee the current location of Mr. Meadows's cell 
phone and whether Mr. Meadows provided his texts and other 
relevant cell phone records to the National Archives.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\Id.
    \73\Id.
    \74\Id.
    \75\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an effort to reach an accommodation with respect to Mr. 
Meadows's deposition, the November 5, 2021, letter provided 
further information regarding the topics the Select Committee 
intended to develop with Mr. Meadows during the deposition, 
some of which the Chairman had previously identified in his 
October 25, 2021, letter. These topics included but were not 
limited to ``[m]essaging to or from the White House, Trump 
reelection campaign, party officials, and others about 
purported fraud, irregularities, or malfeasance in the November 
2020 election''; ``[e]fforts to pressure federal agencies, 
including the Department of Justice, to take actions to 
challenge the results of the presidential election, advance 
allegations of voter fraud, interfere with Congress's count of 
the Electoral College vote, or otherwise overturn President 
Biden's certified victory''; ``[e]fforts to pressure former 
Vice President Pence, members of his staff, and Members of 
Congress to delay or prevent certification of the Electoral 
College vote''; ``[c]ampaign related activities'' including Mr. 
Meadows's ``travel to Georgia'' and contacts with ``officials 
and employees in the Georgia secretary of state's Office''; 
``[m]eetings or other communications involving people who did 
not work for the United States government'' including ``Michael 
Flynn, Patrick Byrne,'' and ``organizers of the January 6 rally 
like Amy Kremer''; and ``[a]dvance knowledge of, and any 
preparations for, the possibility of violence during election-
related rallies and/or protests in Washington, D.C.''\76\ The 
letter made clear that the Select Committee did not expect to 
seek information from Mr. Meadows unrelated to the 2020 
election and what led to and occurred on January 6, and 
indicated a willingness to discuss and negotiate any additional 
areas or subjects about which the Select Committee would seek 
information from Mr. Meadows as the Select Committee continued 
its investigation.\77\ Chairman Thompson invited input from Mr. 
Meadows on the delineated topics by November 8.\78\. As in 
previous correspondence, Chairman Thompson stated that the 
Select Committee would view failure to respond to the subpoena 
as willful non-compliance, which would force the Select 
Committee to consider invoking the contempt of Congress 
procedures pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  192 and 194, in 
addition to the possibility of civil enforcement 
proceedings.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\Id.
    \77\Id.
    \78\Id.
    \79\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 8, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger responded, stating 
that he was ``reiterate[ing]'' Mr. Meadows's position that he 
``cannot be compelled to provide congressional testimony'' as a 
former White House chief of staff.\80\ As a purported 
``accommodation,'' Mr. Terwilliger proposed ``that the Select 
Committee propound written interrogatories to Mr. Meadows on 
any topics about which the Select Committee may wish to 
inquire.''\81\ Mr. Terwilliger also indicated that Mr. Meadows 
had provided him with access to electronic images from his 
personal accounts and devices, the review of which was 
``ongoing.''\82\ Regarding the list of topics outlined in the 
November 5 letter, Mr. Terwilliger asserted, without 
specifically and narrowly addressing on a topic-by-topic basis, 
that the topics ``plainly implicate executive privilege even 
under a narrow interpretation of it,'' and expressed the belief 
that Mr. Meadows could not testify about the topics without 
implicating executive privilege.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\Id.
    \81\Id.
    \82\Id.
    \83\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a November 9, 2021, letter to Mr. Terwilliger, Chairman 
Thompson stated that Mr. Terwilliger's November 8 letter failed 
to respond with any specificity about the topics of inquiry by 
the Select Committee, leading the Select Committee to assume 
that Mr. Terwilliger believed that all of the topics 
potentially implicated executive privilege.\84\ Chairman 
Thompson further stated that without further input on those 
topics, which the Select Committee had requested in its 
November 5 letter, the Select Committee must insist that Mr. 
Meadows appear for a deposition on November 12, as required by 
the subpoena, and that written interrogatories were not an 
acceptable substitute for live, in-person testimony.\85\ The 
November 9 letter further stated that the Select Committee had 
identified evidence regarding Mr. Meadows's use of personal 
cellular phone and email accounts, and, because of that, it 
would be a subject of inquiry during the November 12 
deposition.\86\ The letter listed eight specific questions 
concerning the information that the Select Committee would seek 
to develop regarding this issue, none of which implicated any 
executive or other privilege.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\Id.
    \85\Id.
    \86\Id.
    \87\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, on November 9, 2021, the Federal District Court 
for the District of Columbia issued a ruling rejecting Donald 
Trump's attempt to prohibit disclosure of White House documents 
to the Select Committee by asserting the executive 
privilege.\88\ The Federal court held ``that the public 
interest lies in permitting--not enjoining--the combined will 
of the legislative and executive branches to study the events 
that led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider 
legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring 
again.''\89\ The United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's 
ruling on December 9, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\Trump v. Thompson, Case No. 1:21-cv-02769-TSC, Doc. 35 (D.D.C. 
Nov. 9, 2021) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
    \89\Id., at p. 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 10, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger acknowledged receipt 
of Chairman Thompson's November 9, 2021, letter, but did not 
address the eight specific questions Chairman Thompson included 
in his letter, instead stating that ``Mr. Meadows cannot agree 
to appear at 10 AM Friday'' and again claiming that Mr. Meadows 
believed that ``senior aides to the president cannot be 
compelled to provide congressional testimony.''\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\See Appendix, Ex. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 11, 2021, the White House Counsel's Office 
issued a letter to Mr. Terwilliger regarding the Select 
Committee's subpoena to Mr. Meadows. That letter stated: ``in 
recognition of these unique and extraordinary circumstances, 
where Congress is investigating an effort to obstruct the 
lawful transfer of power under our Constitution, President 
Biden has already determined that an assertion of executive 
privilege is not in the public interest, and is therefore not 
justified, with respect to particular subjects within the 
purview of the Select Committee.''\91\ The letter further noted 
that, consistent with this determination, President Biden 
``will not assert executive privilege with respect to [Mr. 
Meadows's] deposition testimony on these subjects, or any 
documents your client may possess that may bear on them,'' and 
``will not assert immunity to preclude [Mr. Meadows] from 
testifying before the Select Committee.''\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\Id.
    \92\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Later on November 11, 2021, Chairman Thompson sent another 
letter to Mr. Terwilliger. This letter summarized the 
correspondence between Mr. Terwilliger and the Select 
Committee, and again noted that Mr. Meadows's reliance on 
opinions regarding absolute immunity from the Department of 
Justice Office of Legal Counsel (``OLC'') was misguided given 
that their reasoning has been rejected by all Federal courts to 
have considered the issue of absolute immunity.\93\ The 
Chairman's letter emphasized that, in any event, the White 
House Counsel's Office letter from earlier that day 
``eviscerates any plausible claim of testimonial immunity or 
executive privilege, and compels compliance with the Select 
Committee's subpoena.''\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\Id.
    \94\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 12, 2021, at 10 a.m., Mr. Meadows failed to 
appear at the designated location to provide testimony relevant 
to the Select Committee's inquiry in response to questions 
posed, as was required by the subpoena. He also failed to 
produce any responsive documents or a privilege log identifying 
the specific basis for withholding any documents believed to be 
protected by privilege.
    On November 19, 2021, a full week after Mr. Meadows failed 
to appear for a deposition and two weeks after the deadline to 
produce documents, Mr. Terwilliger sent a letter to Chairman 
Thompson purportedly seeking an accommodation and suggesting, 
again, that the Select Committee send interrogatories to Mr. 
Meadows as a first step in a longer accommodation process that 
``could,'' depending on certain negotiations and parameters, 
result in a limited ``deposition'' ``outside of compulsion by 
subpoena.''\95\ Mr. Terwilliger made clear that Mr. Meadows 
would only answer interrogatories on a narrow range of topics, 
and even on those topics would not provide any information 
regarding communications with the former President, former 
senior White House aides, and other individuals with whom Mr. 
Meadows spoke on behalf of the President unless the former 
President explicitly authorized him to do so.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\See Appendix, Ex. 5 (Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to 
Chairman Thompson, Nov. 19, 2021), at p. 2.
    \96\Id., at pp. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Thompson responded to Mr. Terwilliger on November 
22, 2021. In his response, the Chairman rejected Mr. 
Terwilliger's proposal to proceed by interrogatories instead of 
lawfully-compelled testimony and production of documents.\97\ 
In rejecting Mr. Terwilliger's proposal for a second time, the 
Chairman noted that ``[w]hen Mr. Meadows first proposed 
interrogatories, he asked that the Select Committee `propound' 
them, but did not say that he would actually provide any 
substantive information in response.''\98\ The Chairman further 
noted, ``[n]ow, after his failure to comply with the Select 
Committee's subpoena, [Mr. Meadows] has added conditions: (1) 
the interrogatories can only ask questions about two days in 
January 2021 and Mr. Meadows's communications with the 
Department of Justice; and (2) Mr. Meadows will only respond to 
questions about his communications `with or on behalf of the 
[former] President, or with other senior White House aides' 
provided that he first obtains the former President's 
approval.''\99\ Chairman Thompson then walked through the 
Select Committee's lengthy correspondence with Mr. Terwilliger, 
and explained that ``[t]his history has led the Select 
Committee to suspect that you are simply engaged in an effort 
to delay, and that Mr. Meadows has no genuine intent to offer 
any testimony on any relevant topic.''\100\ Nevertheless, the 
Chairman extended Mr. Meadows an opportunity to show that he 
was operating in good faith by instructing Mr. Meadows to 
provide documents responsive to the original subpoena by 
November 26, 2021, and to appear for a deposition that the 
Chairman would convene on November 29, 2021 (later moved to 
December 8, 2021).\101\ In doing so, Chairman Thompson 
reiterated that Mr. Meadows may object to specific questions 
that he believes raise privilege concerns so that he and the 
Select Committee could engage in further discussions about his 
privilege arguments.\102\ In closing, Chairman Thompson 
indicated that the Select Committee would ``defer consideration 
of enforcement steps regarding Mr. Meadows's non-compliance 
with the Select Committee's subpoena pending the November 26 
production of documents and November 29 deposition.''\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\See Appendix, Ex. 6 (Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel 
to Mark Meadows, Nov. 22, 2021).
    \98\Id., at p. 1.
    \99\Id.
    \100\Id., at p. 2.
    \101\Id., at pp. 2-3.
    \102\Id., at p. 3.
    \103\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Terwilliger responded to Chairman Thompson's letter by 
two separate letters dated November 26, 2021. In his first 
letter, Mr. Meadows, through counsel, specifically agreed to 
appear for a ``deposition to answer questions on what you 
believe to be non-privileged matters'' subject to certain 
proposed conditions.\104\ In his separate letter, Mr. Michael 
Francisco, another attorney representing Mr. Meadows, explained 
that Mr. Meadows was making an ``initial'' document production 
of 1,139 documents responsive to the Select Committee's 
subpoena that were found in Mr. Meadows's personal Gmail 
account and that counsel was reviewing information from Mr. 
Meadows`s personal cell phone, which Mr. Meadows ``did not 
retain . . . after January 2021.''\105\ Mr. Francisco also 
provided a privilege log with that document production showing 
that Mr. Meadows was withholding hundreds more documents found 
in his personal Gmail account due to claims of executive, 
marital, and other protective privileges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\See Appendix, Ex. 7 (Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to 
Chairman Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021), at p. 2.
    \105\See Appendix, Ex. 8 (Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to 
Chairman Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021), at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 28, 2021, Chairman Thompson responded to 
counsel's letters and indicated that he was willing to 
accommodate Mr. Meadows's request for a deposition during the 
week of December 6 provided that he complete his production of 
documents no later than Friday, December 3, 2021.\106\ Chairman 
Thompson also explained that the Select Committee would ask 
questions of Mr. Meadows relevant to the investigation and 
consistent with Chairman Thompson's previous letters about 
executive privilege. Chairman Thompson again explained his hope 
that Mr. Meadows would answer the questions posed, but also 
said that Mr. Meadows should assert any privileges that he 
believed applied on a question-by-question basis on the record 
to inform continued discussions.\107\ As an accommodation, 
Chairman Thompson also agreed to provide in advance of the 
depositions the documents that the Select Committee intended to 
use in its questioning.\108\ Mr. Terwilliger agreed to the 
deposition format as explained in the November 28 letter during 
a call with Select Committee staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\See Appendix, Ex. 9 (Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel 
to Mark Meadows, Nov. 28, 2021), at p. 1.
    \107\Id., at p. 2.
    \108\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As requested by Chairman Thompson, on December 3, 2021, Mr. 
Francisco produced approximately 2,300 text messages obtained 
from data backed up from Mr. Meadows's personal cell 
phone.\109\ In doing so, Mr. Francisco also produced a 
privilege log with the document production showing that Mr. 
Meadows was withholding over 1,000 more text messages from his 
personal cell phone due to claims of executive, marital, and 
other protective privileges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\See Appendix, Ex. 10 (Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to 
Chairman Thompson, Dec. 3, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then, on December 7, 2021, Mr. Terwilliger send a letter 
explaining that Mr. Meadows would not attend a deposition on 
December 8, as he had previously agreed to do.\110\ During a 
call with Select Committee staff that same day, Mr. Terwilliger 
indicated that Mr. Meadows would not appear at all, even to 
discuss the documents that he had already provided to the 
Select Committee and that were not covered by any claim of 
protective privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\See Appendix, Ex. 11 (Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to 
Chairman Thompson, Dec. 7, 2021)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To date, and despite the opportunity that the Select 
Committee gave to Mr. Meadows to cure his previous non-
compliance with the Select Committee's subpoena, Mr. Meadows 
has never appeared for a compelled or voluntary deposition to 
answer any of the Select Committee's questions, even questions 
about the documents that Mr. Meadows has produced to the Select 
Committee.

C. Mr. Meadows's purported basis for non-compliance is wholly without 
        merit.

    As explained above, as part of its legislative function, 
Congress has the power to compel witnesses to testify and 
produce documents.\111\ An individual--whether a member of the 
public or an executive branch official--has a legal (and 
patriotic) obligation to comply with a duly issued and valid 
congressional subpoena, unless a valid and overriding privilege 
or other legal justification permits non-compliance.\112\ In 
United States v. Bryan, the Supreme Court stated:

        A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of 
        hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if 
        cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case, then, 
        indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary 
        to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures, would 
        be a nullity. We have often iterated the importance of this 
        public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the 
        Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.\113\

    It is important to note that the Select Committee sought 
testimony from Mr. Meadows on information for which there can 
be no conceivable privilege claim. Examples of that information 
are provided in this report, and the non-privileged nature of 
some key information has been recognized by Mr. Meadows's own 
production documents. The Select Committee has been entitled to 
Mr. Meadows's testimony on that information, regardless of his 
claims of privilege over other categories of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\McGrain, 273 U.S. at 174 (``We are of opinion that the power 
of inquiry--with process to enforce it--is an essential and appropriate 
auxiliary to the legislative function.''); Barenblatt v. United States, 
360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959) (``The scope of the power of inquiry, in 
short, is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to 
enact and appropriate under the Constitution.'').
    \112\Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187-88 (``It is unquestionably the duty 
of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain 
the facts needed for intelligent legislative action.''); see also 
Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 99 (D.D.C. 
2008) (``The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that compliance 
with a congressional subpoena is a legal requirement.'') (citing United 
States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950)).
    \113\United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 (1950).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703-16 (1974), the 
Supreme Court recognized an implied constitutional privilege 
protecting presidential communications. The Court held though 
that the privilege is qualified, not absolute, and that it is 
limited to communications made ``in performance of [a 
President's] responsibilities of his office and made in the 
process of shaping policies and making decisions.''\114\ 
Executive privilege is a recognized privilege that, under 
certain circumstances, may be invoked to bar congressional 
inquiry into communications covered by the privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (GSA), 433 U.S. 
425, 449 (1977) (internal quotes and citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Meadows has refused to testify in response to the 
subpoena ostensibly based on broad and undifferentiated 
assertions of various privileges, including claims of executive 
privilege purportedly asserted by former-President Trump. As 
the Select Committee has repeatedly pointed out to Mr. Meadows, 
his claims of testimonial immunity and executive privilege do 
not justify Mr. Meadows's conduct with respect to the Select 
Committee's subpoena. His legal position is particularly 
untenable in light of the incumbent President's decision to not 
assert testimonial immunity or executive privilege with respect 
to subjects on which the Select Committee seeks information 
from Mr. Meadows. And it is untenable in light of Mr. Meadows's 
public descriptions of events in the book that he is trying to 
sell and during his numerous television appearances.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\See, e.g., Meadows, The Chief's Chief; ``Hannity,'' Fox News, 
(Dec. 7, 2021), available at https://video.foxnews.com/v/
6285715473001#sp=show-clips; ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox News, (Dec. 9, 
2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-meadows-
potential-contempt-charges-january-6-committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even if privileges were applicable to some aspects of Mr. 
Meadows's testimony, he was required to appear before the 
Select Committee for his deposition, answer any questions 
concerning non-privileged information, and assert any such 
privilege on a question-by-question basis. After promising to 
appear, Mr. Meadows has now reversed course and resumed his 
contemptuous behavior. Mr. Meadows's conduct in response to the 
Select Committee's subpoena constitutes a violation of the 
contempt of Congress statutory provisions.
            1. The incumbent President has declined to assert claims of 
                    executive privilege and testimonial immunity.
    President Biden has declined to assert claims of executive 
privilege or testimonial immunity regarding subjects about 
which the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony from 
Mr. Meadows. That fact matters because, even if a former 
President attempts to prevent disclosure of certain information 
through assertions of executive privilege, the former 
President's privilege is subordinate to executive privilege 
determinations made by the incumbent President. ``[I]t is the 
new President [not his predecessor] who has the information and 
attendant duty of executing the laws in the light of current 
facts and circumstances,'' and ``the primary, if not the 
exclusive'' duty of deciding when the need of maintaining 
confidentiality in communications ``outweighs whatever public 
interest or need may reside in disclosure.'' Dellums v. Powell, 
561 F.2d 242, 247 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
    Indeed, in briefings in Trump v. Thompson, litigation 
involving a lawsuit against the Select Committee and the 
National Archives and Records Administration, DOJ has 
explained, even more specifically, why President Biden's 
decision controls whether information relevant to the Select 
Committee's investigation should be disclosed. DOJ said, among 
other things, that ``[a] former President has no responsibility 
for the current execution of the law'' and ``[a]bsent unusual 
circumstances, allowing a former President to override 
decisions by the incumbent President regarding disclosure of 
Executive Branch information would be an extraordinary 
intrusion'' into executive branch authority.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\Brief for Executive Branch Defendants, Trump v. Thompson, Case 
No. 21-5254, Doc. No. 1923461, at p. 28 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 22, 2021) 
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In other words, ``[a]llowing a former President to block 
disclosure of Executive Branch information that the incumbent 
President has determined is in the national interest to share 
with Congress would be even more clearly contrary to well-
established principles governing the exercise of sovereign 
authority.''\117\ This is consistent with the District Court's 
decision in the same litigation, in which it rejected Mr. 
Trump's position and explained that Mr. Trump ``is no longer 
situated to protect executive branch interests with the 
information and attendant duty of executing the laws in the 
light of current facts and circumstances'' and because ``he no 
longer remains subject to political checks against potential 
abuse of that power.''\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\Id., at p. 29 (emphasis in original).
    \118\Trump v. Thompson, Case No. 1:21-cv-02769-TSC, Doc. No. 35, at 
p. 19 (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2021) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In his November 3 letter, Mr. Terwilliger stated that ``it 
would be untenable for Mr. Meadows to decide unilaterally that 
he will waive privileges that not only protected his own work 
as a senior White House official but also protect current and 
future White House officials, who rely on executive privilege 
in giving their best, most candid advice to the 
President.''\119\ Of course, Mr. Meadows appears to have 
already done that by recounting in his book and on national 
television specific conversations and deliberations he had with 
Mr. Trump about events related to the January 6th attack on the 
United States Capitol. But, even if he had not done all of 
that, he still need not worry about making such decisions 
``unilaterally'' because the incumbent President has already 
declined to assert executive privilege or testimonial immunity 
regarding subjects about which the Select Committee seeks 
information. Mr. Meadows has known since he received the White 
House's letter on November 11, 2021, that President Biden 
determined that ``an assertion of privilege is not justified 
with respect to testimony and documents'' and that President 
Biden ``will not assert executive privilege with respect to 
[Mr. Meadows'] deposition testimony on these subjects, or any 
documents [Mr. Meadows] may possess that bear on them relevant 
to the Select Committee's investigation.''\120\ President Biden 
came to this conclusion ``in recognition of these unique and 
extraordinary circumstances, where Congress is investigating an 
effort to obstruct the lawful transfer of power under our 
Constitution.''\121\ Despite all of this, Mr. Meadows failed to 
appear for his deposition on November 12. When given the 
opportunity to cure his earlier contempt and appear for a 
deposition well after the subpoena's deadlines, he, once again, 
failed to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\See Appendix, Ex. 2.
    \120\See Appendix, Ex. 3, at p. 2. White House Deputy Counsel has 
also made clear that the White House's position has remained unchanged 
as of December 8, 2021.
    \121\Id., at p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. Mr. Trump has not formally invoked executive privilege.
    Former President Trump has had no communication with the 
Select Committee. In an October 11 email to the Select 
Committee, Mr. Meadows's attorney attached an October 6, 2021, 
letter from Mr. Trump's attorney, Justin Clark, in which Mr. 
Clark claimed that the Select Committee subpoena seeks 
information that is ``unquestionably protected from disclosure 
by the executive and other privileges, including among others 
the presidential communications, deliberative process, and 
attorney-client privileges.'' Mr. Clark stated that former-
President Trump ``is prepared to defend these fundamental 
privileges in court.'' Mr. Clark also relayed that, ``to the 
fullest extent permitted by law, President Trump instructs Mr. 
Meadows to: (a) where appropriate, invoke any immunities and 
privileges he may have from compelled testimony in response to 
the Subpoena; (b) not produce any documents concerning his 
official duties in response to the Subpoena; and (c) not 
provide any testimony concerning his official duties in 
response to the Subpoena.''\122\ But without a formal assertion 
by Mr. Trump to the Select Committee, Mr. Meadows cannot 
establish the foundational element of a claim of executive 
privilege: an invocation of the privilege by the executive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \122\See Appendix, Ex. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1953), the 
Supreme Court held that executive privilege:

        [B]elongs to the Government and must be asserted by it; it can 
        neither be claimed nor waived by a private party. It is not to 
        be lightly invoked. There must be a formal claim of privilege, 
        lodged by the head of the department which has control over the 
        matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer.

    Here, the Select Committee has not been provided by Mr. 
Trump with any formal invocation of executive privilege. There 
is no legal authority--and neither Mr. Meadows nor former-
President Trump nor his counsel have cited any--holding that a 
vague statement by someone who is not a government official 
that a former President has an intention to assert a privilege 
absolves a subpoena recipient of his duty to comply. Such 
indirect, non-specific assertion of privilege, without any 
description of the documents or testimony over which privilege 
is claimed, is insufficient to activate a claim of executive 
privilege.
            3. Mr. Meadows is not entitled to absolute immunity.
    Mr. Meadows has refused to appear for a deposition based on 
his purported reliance on alleged absolute testimonial 
immunity. However, even if Mr. Trump had invoked executive 
privilege, and even if executive privilege reached certain 
testimony sought by the Select Committee, Mr. Meadows would not 
be immune from compelled testimony before the Select Committee, 
especially given the fact that he is no longer a high-level 
White House official.
    All courts that have reviewed this issue have been clear: 
even senior White House aides who advise the President on 
official government business are not immune from compelled 
congressional process.\123\ Instead, Mr. Meadows acknowledges 
that this theory of immunity is based entirely on internal 
memoranda from OLC that courts, in relevant parts, have 
uniformly rejected.\124\ Nevertheless, Mr. Meadows refused to 
appear at his deposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \123\See Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, 415 F. Supp.3d 148, 
214 (D.D.C. 2019) (and subsequent history) (``To make the point as 
plain as possible, it is clear to this Court for the reasons explained 
above that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute 
immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not 
exist.''); Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 101 
(D.D.C. 2008) (holding that White House counsel may not refuse to 
testify based on direction from the President that testimony will 
implicate executive privilege).
    \124\Id.; see also Appendix, Ex. 2 (``I recognize, as your letter 
points out, that to date, the lower courts have not shared [OLC's] 
view.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, by their own terms, the OLC opinions on which Mr. 
Meadows relies are limited, applying only to testimony ``about 
[a senior official's] official duties,'' not testimony about 
unofficial duties.\125\ Many of the topics that Chairman 
Thompson identified in his correspondence are unrelated to Mr. 
Meadows's official duties and would neither fall under the 
reach of the ``absolute immunity'' theory nor any privilege 
whatsoever. For instance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President, Office of 
Legal Counsel, Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former 
Counsel to the President, 43 O.L.C. 1 at 1 (May 20, 2019); see also 
Memorandum Opinion for the Counsel to the President, Office of Legal 
Counsel, Immunity of the Former Counsel to the President from Compelled 
Congressional Testimony, 31 O.L.C. 191 at 193 (July 10, 2007) (``we 
conclude that Ms. Miers is immune from compelled congressional 
testimony about matters . . . that arose during her tenure as Counsel 
to the President and that relate to her official duties in that 
capacity'' (emphasis added)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Meadows was not conducting official and 
        privileged business when he participated in a January 
        2021 call with campaign lawyers and State officials in 
        which the participants urged State legislators to 
        overturn the results of the November 2020 election and 
        guarantee a second term for Mr. Trump;
           Mr. Meadows was not conducting official and 
        privileged business when he participated in another 
        call with campaign lawyers and the Georgia secretary of 
        state in which Mr. Trump urged the Georgia secretary of 
        state to ``find'' enough votes to ensure his campaign's 
        victory in Georgia; and
           Mr. Meadows was not engaged in official and 
        privileged business when he used his personal accounts 
        and/or devices to contact the Georgia secretary of 
        state or speak with private organizers of a rally on 
        the Ellipse that occurred just before the attack on the 
        U.S. Capitol.
    The Select Committee specifically identified to Mr. Meadows 
these and other topics as subjects for his deposition 
testimony, and he had the legal obligation to appear before the 
Select Committee and address them on the record.
    Mr. Meadows's production of documents to the Select 
Committee highlights that he has information relevant to the 
Select Committee's inquiry that he himself acknowledges is not 
subject to any privilege. His refusal to provide testimony on 
such subjects further evidences willful non-compliance with the 
Select Committee's deposition subpoena. Mr. Meadows produced to 
the Select Committee certain communications with campaign 
staff, Members of Congress, and acquaintances that do not 
involve official business, while withholding others that 
presumably do involve official business because of ``executive 
privilege.'' In doing so, Mr. Meadows has clearly acknowledged 
that he has relevant information that is not related to his 
official conduct. And because the relevant information that he 
has is not related to his official conduct, Mr. Meadows cannot 
avoid a deposition in which he would be asked questions about 
those documents by invoking an OLC opinion that is limited to 
testimony about ``official duties.''
            4. Even if Mr. Trump had properly invoked executive 
                    privilege and Mr. Meadows had properly asserted it, 
                    the privilege would not bar the Select Committee 
                    from obtaining evidence from Mr. Meadows.
    The law is clear that executive privilege does not extend 
to discussions relating to non-governmental business or among 
private citizens.\126\ In In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 
729, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the court explained that the 
presidential communications privilege covers ``communications 
authored or solicited and received by those members of an 
immediate White House adviser's staff who have broad and 
significant responsibility for investigating and formulating 
the advice to be given the President on the particular matter 
to which the communications relate.'' The court stressed that 
the privilege only applies to communications intended to advise 
the President ``on official government matters.''\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\See Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 449.
    \127\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted above, the Select Committee seeks information from 
Mr. Meadows on a wide range of subjects that executive 
privilege cannot conceivably reach. For example, the Select 
Committee seeks information from Mr. Meadows about his 
interactions with private citizens, Members of Congress, or 
others outside the White House related to the 2020 election or 
efforts to overturn its results. Mr. Meadows has repeatedly 
refused to answer any questions about these matters. He has 
even refused to answer questions about the documents that he 
himself produced to the Select Committee without any assertions 
of privilege.
    Even with respect to Select Committee inquiries that 
involve Mr. Meadows's direct communications with Mr. Trump, 
executive privilege does not bar Select Committee access to 
that information. Only communications that relate to official 
government business can be covered by the presidential 
communications privilege.\128\ Here, Mr. Meadows's conduct 
regarding several subjects of concern to the Select Committee 
is not related to official government business, such as: 
Meadows's participation in calls and meetings that clearly 
concerned Mr. Trump's campaign rather that his official duties; 
or, Mr. Meadows's participation in meetings with Mr. Trump and 
private individuals about seizing voting machines or taking 
other steps related to the election that could reportedly, in 
Mr. Trump's words, ``offer[] me a chance''; or, Mr. Meadows's 
contacts with organizers of the January 6th rally on the 
Ellipse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\See Espy, 121 F.3d at 752 (``the privilege only applies to 
communications . . . in the course of performing their function of 
advising the President on official government matters''); cf. In re 
Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Deputy White House 
Counsel's ``advice [to the President] on political, strategic, or 
policy issues, valuable as it may have been, would not be shielded from 
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, even with respect to any subjects of concern that 
arguably involve official government business, the Select 
Committee's need for this information to investigate the facts 
and circumstances surrounding the horrific January 6 assault on 
the U.S. Capitol and the Nation's democratic institutions far 
outweighs any possible executive branch interest at this point 
in maintaining confidentiality. As noted by the executive, 
``the constitutional protections of executive privilege should 
not be used to shield information reflecting an effort to 
subvert the Constitution itself, and indeed [the President] 
believes that such an assertion in this circumstance would be 
at odds with the principles that underlie the privilege.''\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \129\See Appendix, Ex. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, when explaining his claim of privilege to the 
Select Committee, Mr. Meadows has suggested that he has no 
choice but to avoid testifying because, as White House chief of 
staff, he had ``assumed responsibility to protect Executive 
Privilege during and after his tenure,'' and that he had 
``assumed that responsibility not for his own benefit but for 
the benefit of all those who will serve after him, including 
future presidents.''\130\ He included in a separate letter a 
passage about the importance of executive branch 
confidentiality to ``ensure that the President can obtain . . . 
sound and candid advice.''\131\ Those words are belied by Mr. 
Meadows's conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \130\See Appendix, Ex. 11, at p. 2.
    \131\See Appendix, Ex. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To be sure, the Supreme Court has made clear that executive 
privilege is rooted in the need for confidentiality to ensure 
that presidential decision-making is informed by honest advice 
and full knowledge: ``[h]uman experience teaches that those who 
expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper 
candor with a concern for appearances and for their own 
interests to the detriment of the decision-making 
process.''\132\ In Nixon v. GSA, the Supreme Court again 
considered issues related to executive privilege and balanced 
the important interests served by the Presidential Records Act 
against the intrusion into presidential confidentiality caused 
by compliance with the Act.\133\ Thus, a valid claim of 
executive privilege presumes that the information sought to 
discovered is confidential and that the need to maintain that 
confidentiality outweighs the interests promoted by disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705-06 (1974).
    \133\Nixon v. GSA, 433 U.S. at 455 (``But given the safeguards 
built into the Act to prevent disclosure of such materials and the 
minimal nature of the intrusion into the confidentiality of the 
Presidency, we believe that the claims of Presidential privilege 
clearly must yield to the important congressional purposes of 
preserving the materials and maintaining access to them for lawful 
governmental and historical purposes.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here, however, executive privilege and the need to maintain 
confidentiality is severely undermined, if not entirely 
vitiated, by Mr. Meadows's own extensive public disclosure of 
his communications with the former President, including on 
issues directly implicated by the Select Committee's subpoena. 
Mr. Meadows has appeared on national television discussing the 
January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and related 
conversations with former-President Trump.\134\ And he has 
written about what former-President Trump told him on January 
6th in his newly released book.\135\ Mr. Meadows's conduct 
relating to the very subjects of interest to the Select 
Committee foreclose a claim of executive privilege with respect 
to those disclosures.\136\ Moreover, Mr. Meadows's statements 
to the Select Committee about his professed need to protect 
presidential confidentiality rings hollow in the face of his 
cavalier and repeated disclosure of presidential communications 
in circumstances where doing so appears to suit his personal or 
political interests. Mr. Meadows has shown his willingness to 
talk about issues related to the Select Committee's 
investigation across a variety of media platforms--anywhere, it 
seems, except to the Select Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\See, e.g., Transcript, ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox News, (Feb. 
11, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/biden-warns-
china-could-eat-our-lunch-after-phone-call-with-xi; Transcript, 
``Hannity,'' Fox News, (Feb. 12, 2021), available at https://
www.foxnews.com/transcript/new-yorker-who-lost-mother-in-law-in-
nursing-home-blasts-disgrace-cuomo; Transcript, ``Hannity,'' Fox News, 
(Dec. 7, 2021), available at https://video.foxnews.com/v/
6285715473001#sp=show-clips; Transcript, ``The Ingraham Angle,'' Fox 
News, (Dec. 9, 2021), available at https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-
meadows-potential-contempt-charges-january-6-committee.
    \135\Meadows, The Chief's Chief, at p. 259.
    \136\See, e.g., Espy, 121 F.3d at 741-42 (discussing waiver and 
concluding that ``the White House has waived its claims of [executive] 
privilege in regard to the specific documents that it voluntarily 
revealed to third parties outside the White House'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the reasons stated above, Mr. Meadows's own conduct and 
the determination by the current executive overrides any claim 
by Mr. Trump (even assuming Mr. Trump had invoked executive 
privilege with respect to Mr. Meadows). Furthermore, Mr. 
Meadows has refused Chairman Thompson's numerous invitations to 
assert executive privilege on a question-by-question basis, 
making it impossible for the Select Committee to consider any 
good-faith executive privilege assertions. And, as discussed 
above, such concerns are wholly inapplicable to the broad range 
of subjects about which the Select Committee seeks Mr. 
Meadows's testimony that Mr. Meadows has acknowledged involve 
non-privileged matters.

D. Precedent supports the Select Committee's position to proceed with 
        holding Mr. Meadows in contempt.

    An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House 
subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress.\137\ Pursuant 
to 2 U.S.C. Sec.  192, the willful refusal to comply with a 
congressional subpoena is punishable by a fine of up to 
$100,000 and imprisonment for up to 1 year.\138\ In Quinn v. 
United States, the Supreme Court said that ``Section 192, like 
the ordinary federal criminal statute, requires a criminal 
intent--in this instance, a deliberate, intentional refusal to 
answer.''\139\ And proving criminal intent in this context is 
no more than showing a ``deliberate'' ``refusal to answer 
pertinent questions''; it does not require a showing of ``moral 
turpitude.''\140\ A committee may vote to seek a contempt 
citation against a recalcitrant witness. This action is then 
reported to the House. If a resolution to that end is adopted 
by the House, the matter is referred to a U.S. Attorney, who 
has a duty to refer the matter to a grand jury for an 
indictment.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 
505, 515 (1975).
    \138\See supra. The prison term for this offense makes it a Class A 
misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C.  3559(a)(6). By that classification, the 
penalty for contempt of Congress specified in 2 U.S.C.  192 increased 
from $1,000 to $100,000. 18 U.S.C.  3571(b)(5).
    \139\Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 165 (1955).
    \140\Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 299 (1929); see also 
In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 672 (1897) (``deliberately refusing to 
answer questions pertinent [to a matter properly under consideration by 
Congress] shall be a misdemeanor against the United States''); Licavoli 
v. United States, 294 F.2d 207, 209 (D.C. Cir. 1961) (```[W]illfully' 
means merely a deliberate intention; an evil motive is not a necessary 
part of the intent thus required.'')
    \141\See 2 U.S.C.  192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Meadows has previously recognized the importance of 
congressional access to information from executive branch 
officials to advance congressional investigations. As a 
Representative in Congress, he served as ranking member of the 
House Committee on Oversight and Reform. In that position, he 
expected that even senior executive branch officials such as 
the Deputy Attorney General comply with Congress's 
subpoenas.\142\ Indeed, such an expectation is consistent with 
precedent spanning Republican and Democratic administrations 
under which top White House aides have provided testimony to 
Congress.\143\ Further, his recent assertion to the Select 
Committee that he ``cannot be compelled to provide 
congressional testimony'' as a former White House chief of 
staff runs directly counter to precedent under which top White 
House aides have provided testimony to Congress under subpoena. 
For example, former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta and 
former White House Counsel Beth Nolan testified in 2001 under 
subpoena regarding President Clinton's pardons before the House 
Committee on Government Reform.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\Mary Papenfuss, ``Watch Mark Meadows Slam Official Who 
`Stonewalled' Subpoenas from GOP Congress,'' Yahoo News, (Nov. 14, 
2021), available at https://news.yahoo.com/watch-mark-meadows-slam-
official-001107830.html (containing video clip of then-Rep. Mark 
Meadows criticizing the Deputy Attorney General for ignoring a 
subpoena); Tweet, @MarkMeadows (July 25, 2018 at 7:01 p.m.) (``I just 
filed a resolution with @Jim_Jordan and several colleagues to impeach 
Rod Rosenstein. The DOJ has continued to hide information from Congress 
and repeatedly obstructed oversight--even defying multiple 
Congressional subpoenas.''); ``Non-Profit Organizations and Politics,'' 
Hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, U.S. House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, (December 13, 2018), (at 
which then-Chairman Meadows chided the Department of Justice for 
declining to make available as a witness the prosecutor appointed to 
investigate alleged wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation), available at 
https://www.c-span.org/video/?455872-1/profit-organizations-politics.
    \143\See, e.g., ``White House Office of Political Affairs: Is 
Supporting Candidates and Campaign Fund-Raising an Appropriate Use of a 
Government Office?'' Hearing of the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, (July 16, 2014), (at 
which Chairman Darrell Issa noted the House Oversight Committee in 2007 
had obtained testimony of 18 Bush administration political appointees 
included White House political directors; and at which Rep. Meadows was 
present); see also ``Presidential Advisers' Testimony before 
Congressional Committees: An Overview,'' Congressional Research 
Service, (RL31351, Apr. 10, 2007).
    \144\``Clinton Aides Testify They Opposed Rich Pardon,'' New York 
Times, (Mar. 1, 2001), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/01/
national/clinton-aides-testify-they-opposed-rich-pardon.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Meadows did not need to be informed of his 
responsibility to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena, 
but Chairman Thompson informed him anyway. In his November 11, 
2021, letter to Mr. Meadows's counsel, Chairman Thompson 
advised Mr. Meadows that his claims of executive privilege were 
not well-founded and did not absolve him of his obligation to 
produce documents and appear for deposition testimony. The 
Chairman made clear that the Select Committee expected Mr. 
Meadows to appear for his scheduled deposition on November 12th 
and produce the requested documents at that time. The Chairman 
warned Mr. Meadows that his continued non-compliance would put 
him in jeopardy of a vote to refer him to the House to consider 
a criminal contempt referral. Mr. Meadows did not produce 
documents and did not show up for his deposition. And, when 
given the opportunity to cure his earlier contempt, Mr. Meadows 
produced documents but still chose to withhold testimony. Mr. 
Meadows's failure to appear for deposition testimony in the 
face of this clear advisement and warning by the Chairman, and 
after being given a second chance to cooperate with the Select 
Committee, constitutes a willful failure to comply with the 
subpoena.

                     SELECT COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    The Select Committee met on Monday, December 13, 2021, with 
a quorum being present, to consider this Report and ordered it 
and the Resolution contained herein to be favorably reported to 
the House, without amendment, by a recorded vote of 9 ayes to 0 
noes.

                         SELECT COMMITTEE VOTE

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Select Committee to 
list the recorded votes during consideration of this Report:
    1. A motion by Ms. Cheney to report the Select Committee 
Report for a Resolution Recommending that the House of 
Representatives find Mark Randall Meadows in Contempt of 
Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by 
the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on 
the United States Capitol favorably to the House was agreed to 
by a recorded vote of 9 ayes to 0 noes (Rollcall No. 3).

                     Select Committee Rollcall No. 3
                Motion by Ms. Cheney to Favorably Report
                       Agreed to: 9 ayes to 0 noes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Members                               Vote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Cheney, Vice Chair....................................          Aye
Ms. Lofgren...............................................          Aye
Mr. Schiff................................................          Aye
Mr. Aguilar...............................................          Aye
Mrs. Murphy (FL)..........................................          Aye
Mr. Raskin................................................          Aye
Mrs. Luria................................................          Aye
Mr. Kinzinger.............................................          Aye
Mr. Thompson (MS), Chairman...............................          Aye
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  SELECT COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII, the Select 
Committee advises that the oversight findings and 
recommendations of the Select Committee are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this Report.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    The Select Committee finds the requirements of clause 
3(c)(2) of rule XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, and the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, to be inapplicable to this Report. Accordingly, the 
Select Committee did not request or receive a cost estimate 
from the Congressional Budget Office and makes no findings as 
to the budgetary impacts of this Report or costs incurred to 
carry out the Report.

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the objective of 
this Report is to enforce the Select Committee's authority to 
investigate the facts, circumstances, and causes of the January 
6th attack and issues relating to the peaceful transfer of 
power, in order to identify and evaluate problems and to 
recommend corrective laws, policies, procedures, rules, or 
regulations; and to enforce the Select Committee's subpoena 
authority found in section 5(c)(4) of House Resolution 503.

                                APPENDIX

    The official transcript that memorialized Mr. Meadows's 
failure to appear at his November 12, 2021, deposition as 
ordered by subpoena, along with exhibits included in that 
record, is as follows:
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE 
            U.S. CAPITOL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
            WASHINGTON, DC
DEPOSITION OF: MARK MEADOWS (NO-SHOW)
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2021
WASHINGTON, DC
The deposition in the above matter was held in * * * * commencing 
            at 10:00 a.m.
          APPEARANCES:
          FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 
          6TH ATTACK ON THE U.S. CAPITOL:
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
                              ----------                              

    * * * *. Good morning. We are on the record.
    Today is November 12th, 2021, the time is 10 a.m., and we 
are convened in * * * * for the deposition of Mark Meadows to 
be conducted by the House Select Committee to Investigate the 
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
    My name is * * * *. I am the designated select committee 
staff counsel for this proceeding. I'm accompanied by * * * *, 
deputy staff director and chief counsel to the select 
committee; * * * *, select committee staff counsel; * * * *, 
select committee staff counsel; * * * *, select committee 
parliamentarian.
    And joining us virtually is * * * * and * * * *, who are 
select committee staff, as well as chief clerk to the select 
committee, * * * *.
    For the record, it is now 10:01 a.m., and Mr. Meadows is 
not present. The person transcribing this proceeding is the 
House stenographer and notary public authorized to administer 
oaths.
    On September 23rd, 2021, Chairman Bennie Thompson issued a 
subpoena to Mr. Meadows, both to produce documents by October 
7th, 2021, and to testify at a deposition on October 15th of 
2021 at 10 a.m.
    The subpoena is in connection with the select committees 
investigation into the facts, circumstances, and causes of the 
January 6th attack and issues relating to the peaceful transfer 
of power in order to identify and evaluate lessons learned and 
to recommend to the House and its relevant committees 
corrective laws, policies, procedures, rules, or regulations.
    After Mr. Meadows retained counsel, who is George 
Terwilliger, III, the select committee agreed to postpone the 
subpoena deadlines to enable his counsel to understand the 
requests associated with the subpoena and work with Mr. 
Meadows.
    Ultimately, by letter dated October 25th, 2021, the select 
committee set new deadlines to produce documents and appear for 
testimony. Mr. Meadows was required to produce documents by 
November 5th, 2021, and appear for testimony on November 12th, 
2021.
    By letters dated between October 25th and November 11th, 
the select committee engaged with counsel for Mr. Meadows. In 
the letters, the select committee addressed Mr. Meadows' claims 
of, among other things, absolute testimonial immunity and 
executive privilege.
    In the letters, the select committee also instructed Mr. 
Meadows to assert his privilege claims in a privilege log for 
responsive documents and on a question by question basis at the 
deposition.
    On November 10th, 2021, Mr. Meadows, through counsel, 
informed the select committee that he would not appear at 
today's deposition citing testimonial immunity and privileges. 
Specifically, counsel said that, quote, ``Mr. Meadows cannot 
agree to appear at 10 a.m. Friday,'' end quote.
    Following that letter, the White House Counsel's Office 
sent counsel for Mr. Meadows a letter dated November 11th, 
indicating that the White House would not assert claims of 
testimonial immunity or executive privilege to prevent Mr. 
Meadows' testimony before the select committee.
    Specifically, the letter states that President Biden, 
quote, ``will not assert executive privilege with respect to 
your client's deposition testimony on these subjects, or any 
documents your client may possess that bear on them. For the 
same reasons underlying his decision on executive privilege, 
President Biden has determined that he will not assert immunity 
to preclude your client from testifying before the Select 
Committee,'' end quote.
    The select committee then sent counsel for Mr. Meadows a 
final letter in light of the White House Counsel's Office's 
stated position. To date, the select committee has not received 
a response.
    In the letters, the select committee informed Mr. Meadows, 
quote, ``the Select Committee will view Mr. Meadows' failure to 
respond to the subpoena as willful non compliance. Such willful 
non compliance with the subpoena would force the Select 
Committee to consider invoking the contempt of Congress 
procedures in 2 U.S.C., sections 192 and section 194--which 
could result in a referral from the House to the Department of 
Justice for criminal charges--as well as the possibility of 
having a civil action to enforce the subpoena brought against 
Mr. Meadows in his personal capacity,'' end quote.
    Mr. Meadows has not provided any documents or a privilege 
log, and Mr. Meadows has not appeared today to answer questions 
or assert privilege objections.
    I will mark as exhibit 1 and enter into the record the 
select committee's subpoena to Mr. Meadows, included with which 
are the materials that accompanied the subpoena; namely, a 
letter from the chairman, a document schedule with accompanying 
production instructions, and a copy of the deposition rules.

                 Exhibit 1 -- Subpoena to Mark Meadows


    * * * *. I will mark as exhibit 2 and enter into the record 
a series of letters and emails exchanged between the select 
committee and counsel for Mr. Meadows. The records include 
email service of the subpoena by * * * *, which Mr. Scott Gast 
accepted on Mr. Meadows' behalf on September 23rd, 2021.
    The records in exhibit 2 also include the letters and 
emails between counsel for the select committee and Mr. George 
Terwilliger, which I described moments ago. And, specifically, 
they are a letter from George Terwilliger to the select 
committee on October 7th; an email from George Terwilliger to 
the select committee on October 13th; letters provided by 
George Terwilliger to the select committee, one of which is a 
letter from him to the White House Counsel's Office dated 
October 11th, 2021, and the other is a letter to George 
Terwilliger dated October 6th from Mr. Justin Clark, as counsel 
to former President Trump; a letter from the select committee 
to George Terwilliger on October 25th; two letters from George 
Terwilliger to the select committee on November 3rd; a letter 
from the select committee to George Terwilliger on November 
5th; a letter from George Terwilliger to the select committee 
on November 8th; a letter from the select committee to George 
Terwilliger on November 9th; a letter from George Terwilliger 
to the select committee on November 10th; and a letter from the 
select committee to George Terwilliger on November 11th.

                  Exhibit 2 -- Various Correspondence


    * * * *. I will mark as exhibit 3 and enter into the record 
a letter dated November 11th, 2021, from the White House 
Counsel's Office to Mr. George Terwilliger as counsel for Mr. 
Meadows.

    Exhibit 3 -- Letter from White House Counsel to Counsel for Mr. 
                         Meadows, Nov. 11, 2021


    * * * *. I will mark as exhibit 4 and enter into the record 
an email dated November 9th, 2021, and corresponding 
attachments from * * * *, chief investigative counsel to the 
select committee, to George Terwilliger, with subject line, 
``Deposition Rules.'' The attachments consist of, one, a 
document called ``Document Production Definitions and 
Instructions''; two, ``Deposition Rules,'' which is a copy of 
the House Congressional Record page H41 from January 4th, 2021; 
third, which is a copy of section 3(b) of House Resolution 8 
dated January 4th, 2021.

 Exhibit 4 -- Select Committee Staff Email to Counsel for Mr. Meadows, 
                              Nov. 9, 2021


    * * * *. And, with that, I will note for the record that it 
is 10:07 a.m., and Mr. Meadows still has not appeared or 
communicated to the select committee that he will appear today 
as required by the subpoena.
    Accordingly, the record is now closed as of 10:07 a.m.
    [Whereupon, at 10:07 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]
    The official transcript for Mr. Meadows's voluntary 
deposition on December 8, 2021, is as follows:
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE 
            U.S. CAPITOL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
            WASHINGTON, DC
DEPOSITION OF: MARK MEADOWS (NO-SHOW)
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2021
WASHINGTON, DC
The deposition in the above matter was held in * * * * commencing 
            at 10:00 a.m.
          PRESENT: Representatives Schiff and Lofgren.
          APPEARANCES:
          FOR THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 
          6TH ATTACK ON THE U.S. CAPITOL:
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
* * * *, * * * *
                              ----------                              

    * * * *. All right. It's 10 a.m. So we'll go ahead and get 
started going on the record.
    This is a deposition of Mark Meadows, conducted by the 
House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on 
the United States Capitol, pursuant to House Resolution 503.
    My name is * * * *. That's * * * *, and I'm the chief 
investigative counsel to the select committee. With me today 
are * * * *, who is a senior investigative counsel, and Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren, who is a member of the select committee, is also 
participating remotely.
    Based on an agreement with counsel to Mr. Meadows, this 
deposition was to begin at 10 a.m. It is now 10 a.m., and Mr. 
Meadows has not appeared.
    Mr. Meadows received a subpoena, dated September 23rd, 
2021, requiring him to produce documents to the select 
committee and appear for a deposition. Staff engaged in several 
discussions with Mr. Meadows' counsel regarding the scope of 
his production and the subject matters to be developed at his 
deposition.
    Staff provided Mr. Meadows' counsel with specific areas in 
which it is interested and asked Mr. Meadows to identify those 
that would trigger a privilege assertion. Rather than engage 
with the select committee, Mr. Meadows asserted that, as a 
former White House chief of staff, he cannot be compelled to 
provide information to Congress. He communicated his blanket 
assertion of immunity, in addition to claims of executive 
privilege, in writing to Chairman Thompson.
    On November 12th, 2021, the select committee convened the 
scheduled deposition of Mr. Meadows after the current White 
House indicated, in writing, that President Biden would not 
assert any immunity or privilege that would prevent Mr. Meadows 
from appearing and answering the committee's questions.
    Mr. Meadows did not appear for that deposition on November 
12th, as indicated in his prior correspondence.
    He also failed to produce any documents responsive to the 
select committee's subpoena or a privilege log asserting claims 
of privilege for specific documents.
    After Mr. Meadows failed to appear for his deposition or 
produce documents, select committee staff engaged in further 
discussions with Mr. Meadows' counsel regarding the status of 
his noncooperation.
    Mr. Meadows ultimately agreed to produce some documents and 
to appear for a deposition today, December 8th, 2021, at 10 
a.m., an offer which the chairman extended to him as a good 
faith effort to enable Mr. Meadows to cure his failure to 
comply with the September 23rd subpoena and provide information 
relevant to the select committee's investigation.
    Mr. Meadows has now produced documents. Counsel made clear 
that Mr. Meadows intended to withhold some responsive 
information due to a claim of executive privilege. He agreed to 
produce documents he believes are not covered by that or any 
other privilege and to produce a privilege log identifying 
responsive documents withheld due to such privilege assertions.
    He also agreed to appear for a deposition, at which he 
would be asked questions on subject matters relevant to the 
select committee's inquiry, as identified in our prior 
correspondence, and either answer the questions or articulate a 
claimed privilege.
    We agreed with Mr. Meadows' counsel that this production 
and deposition would clarify Mr. Meadows' position on the 
application of various privileges and create a record for 
further discussion and consideration of possible enforcement by 
the select committee.
    Consistent with that agreement, Mr. Meadows did produce 
documents and privilege logs. More specifically, he produced 
approximately 6,600 pages of records taken from personal email 
accounts he used to conduct official business, as well as a 
privilege log describing other emails over which he claims 
privilege protection. He also produced approximately 2,000 text 
messages, which Mr. Meadows sent or received using a personal 
device which he used for official business, in addition to a 
privilege log, in which he describes privilege claims over 
other withheld text messages.
    Mr. Meadows was scheduled to appear today, December 8th, 
2021, for a deposition. However, he has not appeared and is not 
present today. We received correspondence from Mr. Meadows' 
attorney yesterday indicating that, despite his prior agreement 
to appear today, his position has changed and he would not 
appear.
    We are disappointed in Mr. Meadows' failure to appear as 
planned, as it deprives the select committee of an opportunity 
to develop relevant information in Mr. Meadows' possession and 
to, more specifically, understand the contours of his executive 
privilege claim.
    Again, the purpose of today's proceeding was to ask Mr. 
Meadows questions that we believe would be outside of any 
cognizable claim of executive, attorney client, Fifth 
Amendment, or other potentially applicable privilege.
    Our hope is that he would answer those questions, which 
would materially advance the select committee's investigation, 
given Mr. Meadows' service as White House chief of staff. We 
expected that he would assert privileges in response to various 
questions, articulating the specific privilege he believes is 
implicated and how it applies to the question asked. We planned 
to evaluate Mr. Meadows' privilege assertions after today's 
proceeding, engage in further discussions with Mr. Meadows' 
counsel, and consider whether enforcement steps were 
appropriate and necessary.
    Mr. Meadows' failure to appear for today's deposition 
deprives us of the opportunity to engage in that process. 
Instead, we are left with Mr. Meadows' complete refusal to 
appear for his deposition or cure his willful noncompliance 
with the select committee's subpoena.
    Had Mr. Meadows appeared for his deposition today, we would 
have asked him a series of questions about subjects that we 
believe are well outside of any claim of executive privilege. 
More specifically, we would have asked Mr. Meadows questions 
about his use of personal email and cellular phones.
    Mr. Meadows' document production includes documents taken 
from two Gmail accounts. We would've asked him how and for what 
purpose he used those Gmail accounts and when he used one of 
them as opposed to his official White House email account. We 
would've similarly asked him about his use of a personal 
cellular telephone.
    We would have sought to develop information about when Mr. 
Meadows used his personal cell phone for calls and text 
messages and when he used his official White House cell phone 
for those purposes.
    Mr. Meadows' production of documents shows that he used the 
Gmail accounts and his personal cellular phone for official 
business related to his service as White House chief of staff. 
Given that fact, we would ask Mr. Meadows about his efforts to 
preserve those documents and provide them to the National 
Archives, as required by the Presidential Records Act. Finally, 
we would have asked Mr. Meadows about his use of a signal 
account, which is reflected in the text messages he produced.
    In addition, we would have asked Mr. Meadows about 
particular emails that he produced to the select committee. We 
do not believe these emails implicate any valid claim of 
executive or other privilege, given that Mr. Meadows has 
produced the emails to the select committee.
    Specifically, we would've asked Mr. Meadows about emails 
about the Electoral Count Act and the prospect of State 
legislators sending alternate slates of electors to Congress, 
including a November 7th, 2020, email with attachments. We 
would've asked him about emails reflecting the Trump campaign's 
effort to challenge election results, including a December 23rd 
email from Mr. Meadows indicating that, quote, ``Rudy was put 
in charge. That was the President's decision,'' end quote, that 
reflects a direct communication between Mr. Meadows and the 
President.
    We would've asked him about emails from Mr. Meadows to 
leadership at the Department of Justice on December 29th and 
30th, 2020, and January 1st, 2021, encouraging investigations 
of suspected voter fraud, including claims that had been 
previously rebutted by State and Federal investigators and 
rejected by Federal courts.
    We would have asked Mr. Meadows about emails regarding the 
deployment of the National Guard on January 6th, including a 
January 5th email from Mr. Meadows in which he indicates that 
the Guard would be present at the Capitol to, quote, ``protect 
pro Trump people,'' end quote.
    In addition, we would have asked Mr. Meadows about specific 
text messages he sent or received that he has produced to the 
select committee. Given Mr. Meadows' production of these text 
messages to the select committee, they do not, in our view, 
implicate any valid claim of executive or other privilege.
    We would've specifically asked Mr. Meadows about text 
messages regarding efforts to encourage Republican legislators 
in certain States to send alternate slates of electors to 
Congress, including a message sent by Mr. Meadows on December 
8th, 2020, in which Mr. Meadows said, quote, ``We are,'' end 
quote, and another text from Mr. Meadows to someone else in 
which he said that, quote, ``We have a team on it,'' end quote.
    We would have asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to 
and from Members of Congress, including text messages received 
from a Member of Congress in November of 2020 regarding efforts 
to contact State legislators because, as Mr. Meadows indicates 
in his text messages, quote, ``POTUS wants to chat with them,'' 
end quote, which reflects a direct communication with the 
President, as well as texts in December of 2020 regarding the 
prospect of the President's appointment of Jeffrey Clark as 
Acting Attorney General.
    We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to 
and from another Member of Congress in November of 2020, in 
which the member indicates that, quote, the President asked him 
to call Governor Ducey, end quote, and in which Mr. Meadows 
asks for contact information for the attorney general of 
Arizona to discuss allegations of election fraud.
    We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to 
and received from Members of the House of Representatives and 
the Senate about objections to the certification of electors in 
certain States on January 6th. We would have asked him about 
text messages sent to and received from a Senator regarding the 
Vice President's power to reject electors, including a text in 
which Mr. Meadows recounts a direct communication with 
President Trump who, according to Mr. Meadows in his text 
messages, quote, ``thinks the legislators have the power, but 
the VP has power too,'' end quote.
    We would have asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to 
and received from a media personality on December 12th, 2021, 
regarding the negative impact of President Trump's election 
challenges on the Senate runoff elections in Georgia, President 
Trump's prospects for election in 2024, and Mr. Meadows 
possible employment by a news channel.
    We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages sent to 
and received from an organizer of the January 6th events on the 
Ellipse about planning the event, including details about who 
would speak at the event and where certain individuals would be 
located.
    We'd ask Mr. Meadows about text messages regarding 
President Trump's January 2nd, 2021, phone call with Georgia 
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, including texts to and 
from participants in the call as it took place, as well as text 
messages to and received from Members of Congress after the 
call took place regarding strategy for dealing with criticism 
of the call.
    We would've asked Mr. Meadows about text messages exchanged 
with various individuals, including Members of Congress, on 
January 6th, both before, during, and after the attack on the 
United States Capitol, including text messages encouraging Mr. 
Meadows to facilitate a statement by President Trump 
discouraging violence at the Capitol on January 6th, including 
a text exchange with a media personality who had encouraged the 
presidential statement asking people to, quote, ``peacefully 
leave the Capitol,'' end quote, as well as a text sent to one 
of--by one of the President's family members indicating that 
Mr. Meadows is, quote, ``pushing hard,'' end quote, for a 
statement from President Trump to, quote, ``condemn this 
shit,'' end quote, happening at the Capitol.
    Text messages: We would ask Mr. Meadows questions about 
text messages reflecting Mr. Meadows' skepticism about public 
statements regarding allegations of election fraud put forth by 
Sidney Powell and his skepticism about the veracity of claims 
of tampering with Dominion voting machines.
    In addition, we would've asked Mr. Meadows questions about 
specific representations in a book he has authored, The Chief's 
Chief, in which he recounts various facts relevant to the 
select committee's investigation and directly describes 
communications with the President, including on page 259, 
quote, ``A few sentences later, President Trump ad libbed a 
line that no one had seen before, saying, `Now it is up to 
Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. 
After this, we're going to walk down--and I'll be there with 
you--we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to 
cheer on our brave Senators and Congressmen and women. We're 
probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them 
because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You 
have to show strength. You have to be strong.' When he got off 
stage, President Trump let me know that he had been speaking 
metaphorically about the walk to the Capitol. He knew as well 
as anyone that we wouldn't organize a trip like that on such 
short notice,'' end quote.
    We would've asked Mr. Meadows about another passage in his 
book that appears on page 261. Quote, ``In the aftermath of the 
attack, President Trump was mortified. He knew the media would 
take this terrible incident and twist it around. He also knew 
his days on Twitter were probably numbered,'' end quote.
    We would've asked Mr. Meadows about another passage on page 
261 in his book. Quote, ```Mark,' Trump would say to me, `Look, 
if I lost, I'd have no problem admitting it. I would sit back 
and retire and probably have a much easier life, but I didn't 
lose. People need me to get back to work. We're not done 
yet,''' end quote.
    We would've asked Mr. Meadows about another passage in his 
book on page 264 that reflects, quote, ``On January 20th, with 
less than 5 hours left in his historic Presidency, at a time 
when most outgoing Presidents would be quietly making notes for 
their memoirs and taking stock of their time in the White 
House, President Trump was being forced to defend his legacy 
yet again. `How do we look in Congress?' President Trump asked. 
`I've heard that there are some Republicans who might be 
turning against us. That would be a very unwise thing for them 
to do,''' end quote.
    We would've asked him about another passage on page 265 of 
his book. Quote, ``But I assured President Trump, once again, 
that all would be well with the impeachment trial, and we 
discussed what my role in the proceedings would be after we 
left the White House,'' end quote.
    We would've asked him about the passage on page 266 in his 
book where he recounts, quote, ``On the phone on January 20th, 
President Trump spoke as if he wasn't planning to go anywhere. 
He mentioned the long list of pardons we hadn't been able to 
complete largely due to the slowness on the part of various 
attorneys in the Federal Government. He wondered again about 
the precise details of the impeachment trial, including how 
much money the new lawyers would charge and how we could best 
defend him against the Democrats' attacks,'' end quote.
    These passages reflect direct communications between Mr. 
Meadows and President Trump directly impacting his claims of 
executive privilege.
    Finally, we would ask Mr. Meadows questions about 
statements in his book about his interactions with the 
Department of Justice. Specifically, he addresses such 
interactions with the Department of Justice on pages 257 and 
258 of his book, in which he says, quote, ``It didn't surprise 
me that our many referrals to the Department of Justice were 
not seriously investigated. I never believed they would, given 
the track record of that Department in President Trump's first 
term,'' end quote.
    Again, statements in Mr. Meadows' book directly reflect 
subject matters that the select committee seeks to develop, and 
his public statements directly impact his claims of executive 
privilege.
    But, as of the current time, which is now 10:17, Mr. 
Meadows still has not appeared to cure his earlier 
noncompliance with the select committee's September 23rd, 2021, 
subpoena. So we will not be able to ask any of those questions 
about the documents and messages that he apparently agrees are 
relevant to the select committee and not protected by any 
protective privilege.
    I'd also note for the record that Congressman Adam Schiff, 
a member of the select committee, has joined and, again, that 
member of the committee, Representative Lofgren, has joined.
    Before we close the record, Mr. Schiff or Ms. Lofgren, do 
either of you have any comments to make for the record?
    Mr. SCHIFF. I do not. Thank you.
    * * * *. Ms. Lofgren, anything?
    Ms. LOFGREN. I'm good.
    * * * *. Okay. Thank you.
    Accordingly, the record of this deposition of Mark Meadows, 
now at 10:18 a.m., is closed.
    [Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the deposition was concluded.]
    Additional correspondence between the Select Committee and 
counsel for Mr. Meadows is as follows (continuing the exhibit 
numbering from above):
          5. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman 
        Thompson, Nov. 19, 2021.
          6. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark 
        Meadows, Nov. 22, 2021.
          7. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman 
        Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021.
          8. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman 
        Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021.
          9. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark 
        Meadows, Nov. 28, 2021.
          10. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman 
        Thompson, Dec. 3, 2021.
          11. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman 
        Thompson, Dec. 7, 2021.
          12. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark 
        Meadows, Dec. 7, 2021.

Exhibit 5 -- Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman Thompson, 
                             Nov. 19, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 6 -- Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark Meadows, 
                             Nov. 22, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 7 -- Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman Thompson, 
                             Nov. 26, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 8 -- Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman Thompson, 
                             Nov. 26, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 9 -- Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark Meadows, 
                             Nov. 28, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 10 -- Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman Thompson, 
                              Dec. 3, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 11 -- Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman Thompson, 
                              Dec. 7, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Exhibit 12 -- Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark Meadows, 
                              Dec. 7, 2021
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            [all]